task query filter for callouts

[hardyoyo]

⚠️ Check request is valid.

• My request is about the Tasks plugin for Obsidian.
• I am only requesting a single feature in the Tasks plugin. Multiple changes should be split into individual requests, with links between them.
• I believe my requested feature will be generally applicable to other Tasks plugin users, not just me: it is not uniquely tied to my personal workflow.

⚠️ Please check that this feature request hasn't been suggested before.

• I searched previous Tasks plugin Ideas in Discussions didn't find any similar feature requests.
• I searched previous Tasks plugin Issues didn't find any similar feature requests.

🔖 Feature description

I'd like to be able to filter out/filter for tasks in call-outs. I use call-outs to wrap my daily chores list, and I don't need to see those show up in my tasks queries. Being able to filter (include/exclude) tasks inside call-outs would be helpful for people using call-outs in other ways. Or even to help a user find and move tasks inside call-outs if they want to avoid the other issues with tasks in call-outs.

the filter keywords could be:

callout

and

not callout

✔️ Solution

• in a task query, if I write "callout" the query will only display tasks that appear inside a call-out
• in a task query, if I write "not callout" the query will only display tasks that DO NOT appear inside a call-out

❓ Alternatives

No response

📝 Additional Context

No response

[claremacrae]

Hi, thank you for the suggestion, it’s not one I’d thought of before.

I think a thorough implementation might need a lot of though, is it is probably possible to have tasks nested in block quotes, nested in call-outs, nested in block quotes etc.

So establishing the boundaries, and when exactly a task is considered to be in a callout or not will need some thought and experimenting.

I did do some experiments with a naive custom filter.

I don’t think it’s easy to distinguish between tasks in call-outs and in blockquotes currently.

But do try out the following Markdown in a note in your vault:

## Tasks

### In callout

> [!NOTE]
> - [ ] In a callout 1
>     - [ ] Nested in a callout 2

### In blockquote

> - [ ] In a blockquote
>     - [ ] Nested in a blockquote

### Not in a callout

- [ ] Not in a callout
    - [ ] Nested not in a callout

## Queries

### All tasks in file

```tasks
preset this_file

show tree

sort by function task.lineNumber
```

### In a block quote or callout

```tasks
preset this_file

# we hide the tree, to guarantee that we only see tasks that match the filter:
hide tree

filter by function task.originalMarkdown.startsWith('>')

sort by function task.lineNumber
```

And if you only put tasks in call-outs, the above may be good enough for now.

[claremacrae]

Please try that filter out in your vault, and let me know if it’s good enough for you.

Also, this ‘filter by function’ finds tasks not in callout or block quote:

### Not in a block quote or callout

```tasks
preset this_file

# we hide the tree, to guarantee that we only see tasks that match the filter:
hide tree

filter by function ! task.originalMarkdown.startsWith('>')

sort by function task.lineNumber
```

You can then define two names presets, to re-use in your vault - one that matches call-outs or presets - and the opposite one.

Do let me know how you get on.

[hardyoyo]

filter by function task.originalMarkdown.startsWith('>') does find tasks inside of a callout, and that's brilliant!

However, what I really am interested in doing is excluding (i.e. doesn'tStartWith) ... I've tried a few uses of the word 'not' and keep getting syntax errors. I dug around in the docs and can't find any hints.

OH, a bang! How did I miss that? Trying now.

[hardyoyo]

YES! This work perfectly:

filter by function ! task.originalMarkdown.startsWith('>')

That's all I need. Thank you so much! You may close this ticket.

[claremacrae]

I definitely recommend making a named preset with that instruction, though - so if I add a more precise instruction you can adopt it easily.

[claremacrae]

Thanks for replying so quickly.

I may leave it open for a little while, to think about whether to add a specific instruction anyway.