Should "make checklist" option add checkbox to parent item?


Yeah, I agree.

The behavior has existed since the beginning of Dynalist though, so somehow I must have gotten familiar with it in a weird way :wink:


This isn’t part of the current poll, but my wish is to be able make a parent item that has a checkbox with out the children all getting checkboxes. I’ve taken to using highlight colors instead of checkboxes because of this issue.


@Alan this is interesting and well stated. I think it reflects that just having more ability to customize the checklist is nice. I also like the idea of having non checkable items below a checkable parent node.

I do have to say I like the current mode as a “Default” for the creation of new checklists, but then the ability to toggle each node independently of the parent node would provide the most flexibility.


@erica Wow, I see this feature is now working. Thanks for quickly implementing it!


Which feature? :hushed:


Is this feature planned?
It seems that the poll was very conclusive on not maintaining the current behavior.


Yep, the poll was pretty conclusive and it’s on our list of todos.

Thanks for the heads-up! :hugs:


Yay we’re over 2/3 majority voting for the change. I would like this change! :slight_smile: I avoid checklists entirely because of the danger of accidentally tapping the parent check and obliterating the list. Checkless parent would make it much better. Even just any way to manually hide the parent checkbox would be great (while retaining the new child inheritance of checkbox)


A custom CSS can likely accomplish that, but we want to fix it in the default Dynalist :slight_smile:


thanks thats good info

I gave the CSS fix a shot, but don’t know enough CSS to do it

anyone clever?

basically what i think i want codewise (to do what the poll voted for):
if a node has is-checklist is-parent
then i want the first <div class="Node-checkbox"></div> within that node to exist but not show up (nor take up any space)


It was a pain but I figured it out:

.Node:not(.is-checklist) > .Node-children > .Node-outer > > .Node-self > .Node-checkbox {
	display: none;

It was a pain because from looking at the CSS classes, the parent and the children are identical. So I’m just hiding the first level altogether now, assuming you’re not adding checkbox on a per-item basis.



thank you Erica

It’s beautiful :sob:


I was working on this and it occurred to me that it might break things for a lot of people. Namely, people who:

  1. Didn’t know how to properly make a checklist and just select all the child items and make them checklists;
  2. Know how to properly use a checklist but still wanted discontinuous items with checkboxes.

So now I’m inclined to make the hidden behavior optional… What do you guys think? Do you think the two use cases above are worth considering?


Is there a way to make the CSS only hide the checkbox when .is-parent?

That way if it’s a childless item, the checkbox shows.

I think that would work ideal. It would mean “only children items get checkboxes” just as the vote said. And it would work as those 2 last examples expect too.


What effect would this have on grandchildren and beyond? Is everything under the node still a checkbox, or only its immediate children?


it propagates to all generations of children currently

paste the css to try it



No effect on grandchildren. Everything except for the parent will still have a checkbox.

Does that answer your question?


I made a little edit to Ericas CSS:

.Node:not(.is-checklist) > .Node-children > .Node-outer > > > .Node-checkbox {
display: none;

Now it only hides the checkbox if children exist to carry the checkbox burden. In other words, lone parent items get a checkbox, because that’s probably what a user wants in that scenario.

Here’s what happens if you select a,b,c,d and make them checklists

I wish e and f hid the checkbox too but honestly i think people dont make checklists that deep so theyll probably forgive it


No effect on grandchildren. Everything except for the parent will still have a checkbox.

Does that answer your question?

Yes it does, thank you!


This change has been implemented. For anyone who wants the old behavior, check this option (it’s in advanced):