Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Understanding Cocktail.Schedule.t recurrence_rules #173

Open
yordis opened this issue May 10, 2021 · 2 comments
Open

Understanding Cocktail.Schedule.t recurrence_rules #173

yordis opened this issue May 10, 2021 · 2 comments

Comments

@yordis
Copy link
Contributor

yordis commented May 10, 2021

Hey folks, I am a bit confused why Cocktail.Schedule.t has a list of recurrence_rules, here

recurrence_rules: [Rule.t()],

Following this Stackoverflow question: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/38296679/icalendar-spec-rrule-multiple-times it seems that based on https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc5545 specification

"but it SHOULD NOT be specified more than once. The recurrence set generated with multiple "RRULE" properties is undefined."

So technically this suppose to be a single value

@doughsay
Copy link
Collaborator

Yes, this is a deviation from the spec due to my misunderstanding of it when I first built it. I'm open to having this change, but it would be major breaking change and I use this library in production with multiple rrules per schedule.

@yordis
Copy link
Contributor Author

yordis commented May 12, 2021

@doughsay I am curious to know your use case by the way?

I don't have a strong feeling about it, for the most part, I actually need excal if excal implements some parser and uses some structured data as I explained in another comment.

So I would like to learn why you needed multiple rules behind.

Also, since I don't know the history, I would love to learn about cocktail vs excal and how you ended up with two of them.

Sorry for bothering you so much with this, but hopefully your package stay with me for a long time and I don't have to create "yet another same old same package fixing a minor thing" 😄

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants