| Stefan Ritt wrote: |
|
well, I need to reproduce your problem in order to fix it. The failed assertation you get is due to some internal writing beyond array boundaries, but I have no clue which part of the code makes this. It might be related to the fact that you use the same index (via Subdir=...) for two logbooks. In this scenario, you are only allowed to modify/add entries to one logbook, not the other. The other one may only be used for reading. And even then it's not guaranteed that new entries show up in the second logbook immediately, you might have to restart the server in order to re-index the logbooks. Internally, the daemon does not know that two logbooks are "the same" and one instance will not realize if the other instance modifies the data "below its feet". Can you try to give up the double logbooks and see if the problem goes away?
|
Hm... I have implemented this set-up originally based on this: https://midas.psi.ch/elogs/Forum/66024. The "double logbook" is a machine log with a "software" (OS installations etc.) and a "hardware" (CPU, RAM, etc.) view. The "hardware" view has the "Subdir=" statement. Thinking about it, the "software" view is used most - I have several automatic scripts running which update the contents whenever a machine gets updated, re-installed and so on. The hardware part does not see much editing - until this week, when we decided to start an inventory... So, it's quite possible that we never noticed that this was iffy. For the rest of our goals, this set-up has worked fantastically - never noticed any problem with one view not updating, actually. Also, I do not remember any crashes with the other, single logbooks.
What I've done for now is to ask all team members to use only the software part (the one without the Subdir statement) to actually change content (the entry masks are the same in both versions) and use the hardware part just for viewing. I'll report back as soon as I get some feedback.
Nonetheless, given that this set-up has been a great help for us - if you ever get the chance to make this work (even) better, I'd be most grateful.
Regards,
Thomas |