vault backup: 2026-05-29 11:17:04
This commit is contained in:
Vendored
+1
-3
@@ -1,5 +1,3 @@
|
||||
{
|
||||
"pinned": [
|
||||
"editor:toggle-source"
|
||||
]
|
||||
"pinned": null
|
||||
}
|
||||
Vendored
+1
-2
@@ -25,6 +25,5 @@
|
||||
"neighbouring-files",
|
||||
"cmdr",
|
||||
"sheets",
|
||||
"tabout",
|
||||
"obsidian-tidy-footnotes"
|
||||
"tabout"
|
||||
]
|
||||
Vendored
+1
-1
@@ -11,7 +11,7 @@
|
||||
"page-preview": true,
|
||||
"daily-notes": false,
|
||||
"templates": false,
|
||||
"note-composer": true,
|
||||
"note-composer": false,
|
||||
"command-palette": true,
|
||||
"slash-command": false,
|
||||
"editor-status": true,
|
||||
|
||||
-189
@@ -1,189 +0,0 @@
|
||||
/*
|
||||
THIS IS A GENERATED/BUNDLED FILE BY ESBUILD
|
||||
if you want to view the source, please visit the github repository of this plugin
|
||||
*/
|
||||
|
||||
var __defProp = Object.defineProperty;
|
||||
var __getOwnPropDesc = Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptor;
|
||||
var __getOwnPropNames = Object.getOwnPropertyNames;
|
||||
var __hasOwnProp = Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty;
|
||||
var __export = (target, all) => {
|
||||
for (var name in all)
|
||||
__defProp(target, name, { get: all[name], enumerable: true });
|
||||
};
|
||||
var __copyProps = (to, from, except, desc) => {
|
||||
if (from && typeof from === "object" || typeof from === "function") {
|
||||
for (let key of __getOwnPropNames(from))
|
||||
if (!__hasOwnProp.call(to, key) && key !== except)
|
||||
__defProp(to, key, { get: () => from[key], enumerable: !(desc = __getOwnPropDesc(from, key)) || desc.enumerable });
|
||||
}
|
||||
return to;
|
||||
};
|
||||
var __toCommonJS = (mod) => __copyProps(__defProp({}, "__esModule", { value: true }), mod);
|
||||
|
||||
// src/main.ts
|
||||
var main_exports = {};
|
||||
__export(main_exports, {
|
||||
default: () => TidyFootnotes
|
||||
});
|
||||
module.exports = __toCommonJS(main_exports);
|
||||
var import_obsidian = require("obsidian");
|
||||
|
||||
// src/tidyFootnotes.ts
|
||||
var reKey = /\[\^(.+?(?=\]))\]/gi;
|
||||
var reDefinition = /^\[\^([^\]]+)\]\:/;
|
||||
function isNumeric(value) {
|
||||
return !isNaN(value - parseFloat(value));
|
||||
}
|
||||
function tidyFootnotes(editor) {
|
||||
let markers = [];
|
||||
let definitions = /* @__PURE__ */ new Map();
|
||||
let firstDefinitionLine = -1;
|
||||
let definitionsIndexed = /* @__PURE__ */ new Map();
|
||||
const lineCount = editor.lineCount();
|
||||
let prevKey = "";
|
||||
for (let i = 0; i < lineCount; i++) {
|
||||
const line = editor.getLine(i);
|
||||
let isDefinition = false;
|
||||
let match;
|
||||
if (prevKey.length) {
|
||||
const hasIndent = /^[ \t]/.test(line);
|
||||
const isLastLine = i === lineCount - 1;
|
||||
if (hasIndent || line.length === 0 && !isLastLine) {
|
||||
const value = definitions.get(prevKey);
|
||||
definitions.set(prevKey, value + "\n" + line);
|
||||
markers[markers.length - 1].length++;
|
||||
continue;
|
||||
} else {
|
||||
prevKey = "";
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
while ((match = reDefinition.exec(line)) !== null) {
|
||||
if (match.length < 1)
|
||||
return;
|
||||
isDefinition = true;
|
||||
let key = match[1];
|
||||
let value = line.substring(match[0].length);
|
||||
definitions.set(key, value);
|
||||
prevKey = key;
|
||||
let marker = {
|
||||
key,
|
||||
line: i,
|
||||
index: 0,
|
||||
length: 0,
|
||||
isDefinition: true
|
||||
};
|
||||
markers.push(marker);
|
||||
if (firstDefinitionLine === -1) {
|
||||
firstDefinitionLine = i;
|
||||
}
|
||||
break;
|
||||
}
|
||||
if (isDefinition)
|
||||
continue;
|
||||
while ((match = reKey.exec(line)) !== null) {
|
||||
if (match.length < 1)
|
||||
return;
|
||||
let key = match[1];
|
||||
let marker = {
|
||||
key,
|
||||
line: i,
|
||||
index: match.index,
|
||||
length: match[0].length,
|
||||
isDefinition: false
|
||||
};
|
||||
markers.push(marker);
|
||||
if (!definitionsIndexed.has(key)) {
|
||||
definitionsIndexed.set(key, {
|
||||
key,
|
||||
newKey: key,
|
||||
isNumber: isNumeric(key),
|
||||
value: ""
|
||||
});
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
definitions.forEach((value, key) => {
|
||||
definitionsIndexed.set(key, {
|
||||
key,
|
||||
newKey: key,
|
||||
isNumber: isNumeric(key),
|
||||
value
|
||||
});
|
||||
});
|
||||
let count = 1;
|
||||
let definitionsStr = "";
|
||||
definitionsIndexed.forEach((definition, marker) => {
|
||||
let key = definition.key;
|
||||
if (definition.isNumber) {
|
||||
const current = definitionsIndexed.get(marker);
|
||||
key = count.toString();
|
||||
definitionsIndexed.set(marker, {
|
||||
...current,
|
||||
newKey: key
|
||||
});
|
||||
count++;
|
||||
}
|
||||
definitionsStr += `[^${key}]:${definition.value}
|
||||
`;
|
||||
});
|
||||
const markersCount = markers.length;
|
||||
for (let i = markersCount - 1; i >= 0; i--) {
|
||||
const marker = markers[i];
|
||||
const markerLine = marker.line;
|
||||
if (marker.isDefinition) {
|
||||
let rangeStart, rangeEnd;
|
||||
const lineEnd = markerLine + 1 + marker.length;
|
||||
if (lineEnd === editor.lineCount()) {
|
||||
rangeStart = { line: markerLine, ch: 0 };
|
||||
rangeEnd = { line: lineEnd - 1, ch: Infinity };
|
||||
} else {
|
||||
rangeStart = { line: markerLine, ch: 0 };
|
||||
rangeEnd = { line: lineEnd, ch: 0 };
|
||||
}
|
||||
if (markerLine === firstDefinitionLine) {
|
||||
editor.replaceRange(definitionsStr, rangeStart, rangeEnd);
|
||||
continue;
|
||||
}
|
||||
editor.replaceRange("", rangeStart, rangeEnd);
|
||||
continue;
|
||||
}
|
||||
const definition = definitionsIndexed.get(marker.key);
|
||||
const newKey = definition.newKey;
|
||||
if (marker.key === newKey)
|
||||
continue;
|
||||
const line = editor.getLine(markerLine);
|
||||
const prefix = line.substring(0, marker.index);
|
||||
const newMarker = `[^${newKey}]`;
|
||||
const suffix = line.substr(marker.index + marker.length);
|
||||
const newLine = prefix + newMarker + suffix;
|
||||
editor.replaceRange(
|
||||
newLine,
|
||||
{ line: markerLine, ch: 0 },
|
||||
{ line: markerLine, ch: Infinity }
|
||||
);
|
||||
}
|
||||
if (firstDefinitionLine == -1) {
|
||||
const lineCount2 = editor.lineCount();
|
||||
editor.replaceRange(
|
||||
"\n\n" + definitionsStr,
|
||||
{ line: lineCount2, ch: 0 },
|
||||
{ line: lineCount2, ch: Infinity }
|
||||
);
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
// src/main.ts
|
||||
var TidyFootnotes = class extends import_obsidian.Plugin {
|
||||
async onload() {
|
||||
this.addCommand({
|
||||
id: "tidy-footnotes",
|
||||
name: "Tidy Footnotes",
|
||||
editorCallback: (editor, view) => {
|
||||
tidyFootnotes(editor);
|
||||
}
|
||||
});
|
||||
}
|
||||
};
|
||||
|
||||
/* nosourcemap */
|
||||
@@ -1,11 +0,0 @@
|
||||
{
|
||||
"id": "obsidian-tidy-footnotes",
|
||||
"name": "Tidy Footnotes",
|
||||
"version": "0.1.2",
|
||||
"minAppVersion": "0.11.13",
|
||||
"description": "Tidy your footnotes seamlessly.",
|
||||
"author": "Charlie Chao",
|
||||
"authorUrl": "https://github.com/charliecm",
|
||||
"fundingUrl": "https://www.buymeacoffee.com/charliecm",
|
||||
"isDesktopOnly": false
|
||||
}
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,10 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
aliases:
|
||||
- PMI
|
||||
- Project Management Institute (PMI)
|
||||
title: Project Management Institute (PMI)
|
||||
tags: []
|
||||
---
|
||||
# Project Management Institute (PMI)
|
||||
|
||||
[The Project Management Institute](https://pmi.org)
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,78 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
title: Project Management™ for Construction
|
||||
tags: []
|
||||
---
|
||||
# Project Management™ for Construction
|
||||
|
||||
This note discusses the applicability (or lack thereof)
|
||||
of [[project-management-tm]] in [[construction-contracting]].
|
||||
|
||||
...
|
||||
That's not to say that it should be overlooked in construction applications.
|
||||
There's no better source for solutions to problems that our industries share.
|
||||
Specialized practices like [[lean-construction]]
|
||||
are decades behind [[project-management-institute|PMI]].
|
||||
However, consulting Project Management™ for relevant insight
|
||||
requires acknowledging its biases.
|
||||
|
||||
## Limitations
|
||||
|
||||
### Labor Management
|
||||
|
||||
Project Management™ assumes workforce deficits are difficult to fill,
|
||||
and that significant changes are sign of process failure.
|
||||
|
||||
* Qualified employees are hard to find
|
||||
* Project onboarding is extensive
|
||||
* Diminishing returns start early and are severe
|
||||
|
||||
In construction projects, labor is highly dynamic.
|
||||
Workforce necessarily varies greatly through the project's lifespan,
|
||||
and labor reallocation is a regular (weekly) task.
|
||||
|
||||
* Qualified employees are relatively plentiful, cost is the bottleneck
|
||||
|
||||
* Onboarding is practically nonexistent,
|
||||
new employees are productive on their first day
|
||||
|
||||
* Diminishing returns start late and are less pronounced
|
||||
|
||||
### Basis of Progress
|
||||
|
||||
If you assume that labor is a strong predictor of cost,
|
||||
and that your audience can convert between them implicitly,
|
||||
then hours convey both schedule _and_ cost by their nature.
|
||||
|
||||
Project Management™ is primarily concerned with _schedule_,
|
||||
because it assumes that labor is a strong predictor of cost.
|
||||
|
||||
* Labor is the greatest (if not only) project cost.
|
||||
* Labor (and therefore cost) is effectively fixed for a given scope.
|
||||
|
||||
As such, Project Managers™ may discuss project cost in hours,
|
||||
with no loss of detail.
|
||||
|
||||
In construction projects, labor is known to be a weak predictor of cost.
|
||||
|
||||
* Labor is almost always a minority of project cost.
|
||||
* Functionally equal options have a large spread
|
||||
of possible hours-to-complete and total cost values.
|
||||
|
||||
As such, construction project managers must discuss project cost directly.
|
||||
|
||||
I believe this difference is one purely of language,
|
||||
and doesn't represent a difference in philosophy.
|
||||
However, it does speak to Project Management™'s tendency to overgeneralize.
|
||||
|
||||
### Material
|
||||
|
||||
The use of labor as a measure of cost is not a difference of philosophy itself,
|
||||
however Project Management™ is only able to get away with conflating labor and cost
|
||||
because it assumes Material cost is negligible,
|
||||
or that it can be allocated as overhead.
|
||||
|
||||
What I'm calling Material cost
|
||||
refers to direct costs not associated with labor.
|
||||
These costs vary wildly,
|
||||
even independent of installation requirements,
|
||||
due to [[gold-plating]] and owner furnished scope.
|
||||
+11
-77
@@ -11,19 +11,20 @@ tags:
|
||||
|
||||
## TALK
|
||||
|
||||
This note may include generic criticism,
|
||||
but discussion of the applicability (or lack thereof)
|
||||
of Project Management™ to construction specifically
|
||||
should be relegated to [[project-management-tm-for-construction]]
|
||||
|
||||
%%
|
||||
|
||||
This note is distinguished from [[project-management]]
|
||||
by referring specifically to doctrine/curriculum,
|
||||
especially as documented by [The Project Management Institute](htpps://pmi.org).
|
||||
especially as documented by [[project-management-institute|PMI]].
|
||||
I've opted to humorously style this concept as Project Management™ for clarity.
|
||||
That is, "Project management" could never be wrong or even misguided,
|
||||
That is, "project management" could never be wrong or even misguided,
|
||||
but Project Management™ can (and often is).
|
||||
|
||||
This note may include generic criticism,
|
||||
but discussion of the applicability (or lack thereof)
|
||||
of Project Management™ to construction specifically
|
||||
|
||||
## Criticism
|
||||
|
||||
The term "Project Management" is deliberately vague,
|
||||
@@ -33,8 +34,9 @@ maximizes its applicability across industries.
|
||||
There are many core Project Management™ ideas
|
||||
that have no parallel in other industries,
|
||||
and industries often have problems of project management
|
||||
that Project Management™ doctrine has no good solutions for.
|
||||
See [[project-management-tm-for-construction]] for examples.
|
||||
that Project Management™ doctrine has no good solutions for.[^1]
|
||||
|
||||
[^1]: See [[project-management-tm-for-construction]].
|
||||
|
||||
I would posit that, despite its cross-discipline language,
|
||||
Project Management™ practice is only _universally_ applicable
|
||||
@@ -45,72 +47,4 @@ to _software_ project management.
|
||||
> humorously points out
|
||||
> that PMI may not be in touch with _any_ part of its audience
|
||||
> if they are able to release a publication "3 years overdue"
|
||||
> without embarrassment.[^1]
|
||||
|
||||
[^1]: p. 103
|
||||
|
||||
That's not to say that it should be overlooked in construction applications.
|
||||
There's no better source for solutions to problems that our industries share.
|
||||
Specialized practices like [[lean-construction]] are decades behind PMI.
|
||||
However, consulting Project Management™ for relevant insight
|
||||
requires acknowledging its biases.
|
||||
|
||||
## Key Differences from Construction
|
||||
|
||||
### Labor Management
|
||||
|
||||
Project Management™ assumes workforce deficits are difficult to fill,
|
||||
and that significant changes are sign of process failure.
|
||||
|
||||
* Qualified employees are hard to find
|
||||
* Project onboarding is extensive
|
||||
* Diminishing returns start early and are severe
|
||||
|
||||
In construction projects, labor is highly dynamic.
|
||||
Workforce necessarily varies greatly through the project's lifespan,
|
||||
and labor reallocation is a regular (weekly) task.
|
||||
|
||||
* Qualified employees are relatively plentiful, cost is the bottleneck
|
||||
* Onboarding is practically nonexistent,
|
||||
new employees are productive on their first day
|
||||
* Diminishing returns start late and are less pronounced
|
||||
|
||||
### Basis of Progress
|
||||
|
||||
If you assume that labor is a strong predictor of cost,
|
||||
and that your audience can convert between them implicitly,
|
||||
then hours convey both schedule _and_ cost by their nature.
|
||||
|
||||
Project Management™ is primarily concerned with _schedule_,
|
||||
because it assumes that labor is a strong predictor of cost.
|
||||
|
||||
* Labor is the greatest (if not only) project cost.
|
||||
* Labor (and therefore cost) is effectively fixed for a given scope.
|
||||
|
||||
As such, Project Managers™ may discuss project cost in hours,
|
||||
with no loss of detail.
|
||||
|
||||
In construction projects, labor is known to be a weak predictor of cost.
|
||||
|
||||
* Labor is almost always a minority of project cost.
|
||||
* Functionally equal options have a large spread
|
||||
of possible hours-to-complete and total cost values.
|
||||
|
||||
As such, construction project managers must discuss project cost directly.
|
||||
|
||||
I believe this difference is one purely of language,
|
||||
and doesn't represent a difference in philosophy.
|
||||
However, it does speak to Project Management™'s tendency to overgeneralize.
|
||||
|
||||
### Material
|
||||
|
||||
The use of labor as a measure of cost is not a difference of philosophy itself,
|
||||
however Project Management™ is only able to get away with conflating labor and cost
|
||||
because it assumes Material cost is negligible,
|
||||
or that it can be allocated as overhead.
|
||||
|
||||
What I'm calling Material cost
|
||||
refers to direct costs not associated with labor.
|
||||
These costs vary wildly,
|
||||
even independent of installation requirements,
|
||||
due to [[gold-plating]] and owner furnished scope.
|
||||
> without embarrassment. (p. 103)
|
||||
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user