Find out supported features of OpenTasks and tasks.org #374

Activity

1. rfc2822

   added the

   Task

   issue type on May 12, 2026
2. rfc2822

   added a parent issue on May 12, 2026

   • Refactor tasks (tasks.org/OpenTasks) to separate layers for storage + mapping #116
3. rfc2822

   added

   tasksRegarding tasks / everything that's stored in a task app providerRegarding tasks / everything that's stored in a task app provider

   on May 12, 2026
4. sunkup commented on May 12, 2026

   

   sunkup

   on May 12, 2026

   Member

   More actions

   https://github.com/search?q=repo%3Atasks%2Ftasks%20ExDate&type=code
5. sunkup commented on May 13, 2026

   

   sunkup

   on May 13, 2026

   Last edited by sunkup

   Member

   More actions

   Actual provider code

   • of OpenTasks: TaskProvider
   • of tasks.org:
     • Astrid2TaskProvider (Old)
     • TasksContentProvider

   Which contracts do they use?

   • OpenTasks: TaskContract
   • tasks.org: Does not appear to define its own independent task provider contract, but uses the org.dmfs.tasks.contract.TaskContract API, which is basically the OpenTasks/Tasks-provider contract.

   Supports exceptions of recurring tasks:

   • OpenTasks: At the storage/provider level: yes. At the app UI level: not really / not fully implemented, can't edit/delete specific instance - can only create recurring tasks and complete them somehow individually
     • Original instance overriding in contract
     • Stores exdate task data
     • UI shows recurrence control only for new tasks
   • tasks.org: Same behaviour: I think it can parse and preserve iCalendar recurrence exceptions during sync, but the app’s own task model and UI are not really built to support editing/handling exceptions.
     • Parses/Handles rrules using ical4j
     • Handles incoming exdates.
     • and writes them back
6. sunkup

   self-assigned this

   on May 13, 2026
7. sunkup commented on May 13, 2026

   

   sunkup

   on May 13, 2026

   Member

   More actions

   I suggest we continue with the currently present support on DAVx5 / synctools side.

   What is the acceptence criteria for the issue? @rfc2822
8. rfc2822 commented on May 13, 2026

   

   rfc2822

   on May 13, 2026

   MemberAuthor

   More actions

   I suggest we continue with the currently present support on DAVx5 / synctools side.

   👍🏻 We don't want to drop features during the rewrite.

   What is the acceptence criteria for the issue? @rfc2822

   It's an investigation issue, so I'd say as soon as we have the answers to the original questions. So this can be closed, as we now know that we have to keep supporting exceptions of recurring events.

   👍React with 👍1Reacted by Sunik Kupfer
9. sunkup

   closed this as completedon May 13, 2026