Query: ignore child blocks

[overthere]

Hi, is there a way to ignore/hide child blocks, so instead of this:

I’d get something like this:

This if from a bit modified default Now query:

{:title "🔨 NOW"
    :query [:find (pull ?h [*])
            :in $ ?start ?today
            :where
            [?h :block/marker ?marker]
            [(contains? #{"NOW" "DOING"} ?marker)]
            [?h :block/page ?p]
            [?p :block/journal? true]
            [?p :block/journal-day ?d]
            [(>= ?d ?start)]
            [(<= ?d ?today)]]
    :inputs [:14d :today]
    :result-transform (fn [result]
                        (sort-by (fn [h]
                                   (get h :block/priority "Z")) result))
    :collapsed? false}

:remove-block-children doesn’t do it sadly.

[Siferiax]

There’s a result-transform to collapse all results.

:result-transform (fn [r] (map (fn [m] (assoc m :block/collapsed? true)) r))

Sadly that’s the only way I know.
Though I wonder if the bonus task wouldn’t just show up separately already?
It is after all meeting the criteria and should be shown individually as well.

:remove-block-children is confusing and I’m not sure what it is suppose to do, and also the default is true. See also:

Advanced query: :remove-block-children does not work?

According to https://docs.logseq.com/#/page/advanced%20queries we can use :remove-block-children? in queries: removes all children/descendants under a block result, only applies to block queries Having tried this with - [[Logseq]] - child and #+BEGIN_QUERY { :query [:find (pull ?b [*]) :where [?p :block/name "logseq"] [?b :block/refs ?p] ] :remove-block-children? true } #+END_QUERY , but child is still displayed under - [[Logseq]] as result. Have I misunderstood this se…

[overthere]

Thank you, that helps.

@Siferiax

Though I wonder if the bonus task wouldn’t just show up separately already?
It is after all meeting the criteria and should be shown individually as well.

It doesn’t, maybe child blocks are ignored by default to avoid duplicates?

I’ll create a Feature Request asking for :remove-block-children to be expanded to situations like this, as I also think there is no way to do it currently

[Siferiax]

@overthere

It doesn’t, maybe child blocks are ignored by default to avoid duplicates?

Accidental discovery, this is exactly what :remove-block-children does

Normal:

With :remove-block-children? false

Edit: made a task for myself to add some clarification to the official documentation for this. The current description doesn’t quite capture this behavior

Edit: made the pull request: Added extra heading to better explain property remove-block-children by Siferiax · Pull Request #103 · logseq/docs · GitHub

[overthere]

Cheers, nice investigation. It seems like a fairly niche use for non-default value. Still now I need to update my second thread hehe.