Bug 515555

SUMMARY
Currently each timer is an independent entity in KTimer. If I start a timer, I can start other timer in parallel too. But there is no way currently to group timers into a set such that they be controlled and run in an order or sequence. 

So for example if we have 4 timers, Timer A, Timer B, Timer C and Timer D. We should be able to group 3 of them, i.e. Timer A, Timer B and Timer C into one group and then apply the various options like Loop, Consecutive tasks, etc on the group. If the user selects Loop option and consecutive tasks option for the group then the Timers in the group are run repeatedly in the order that they are given. So taking our above example, Timer A is run for the period of time given in the Timer, then Timer B is run for the period of time given in the Timer, then Timer C is run for the period of time given in the Timer and then this cyle repeats. 

If the user selects only the option consecutive tasks and not the Loop option for the group then  Timers should run one after the other. Taking our example from earlier, Timer A is run, the Timer B is run and finally Timer C is run and it stops. 

If the user selects only the option loop and not the consecutive task option for the group then each timer in the group will be run repeatedly independent of each other depending on when the user starts the timer in the group. 

Please note that the grouping of 3 timers is just an example. It should be possible to group 2 timers or 4 timers or more timers into a single group. 

STEPS TO REPRODUCE
1.  Open KTimer application
2.  Create a few timers
3. Try to select the timers and then group them. 

OBSERVED RESULT
There is no grouping mechanism. Each Timer is an independent entity. This prevents the chaining of timers.

EXPECTED RESULT
There should be a mechanism to group timers and then chain them in an order. So that various operations can be applied to them as a group.

SOFTWARE/OS VERSIONS
Linux/KDE Plasma: 6.5.5
KDE Plasma Version: 6.5.5
KDE Frameworks Version: 6.22.0
Qt Version: 6.10.2

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
This is not a bug but a feature request