Hello

Just a few fckeditor related questions. How do elog versions and fckeditor versions relate. ?

Can I just drop another version of the fckeditor over an other version?  What things should I consider when doing so ?

thanks for you're time.

The relation is not very "stong". In the past I updated between major version of fckeditor without chaning any elog code, so just give it a try. 

(abc|def).*(abc|def)

(abc.*def)|(def.*abc)

We are exploring whether it's possible/feasible to import ELog logbooks into a another database for special purposes (plotting/statisical, etc). Target database is TBD (perhaps Access).

Does anyone have or know of a logbook parser program? From cut/pasting into, for example, Excel, it does appear that the data fields are already line-feed delimited so offhand it would seem possible to parse if one really wanted to pursue it.

Regards,

- Alan

You can export to CSV (comma-separated-values) if you go to "Find" and then click on "Export: CSV". These fiels you ran read right into Excel or other spreadsheet programs for further analysis. 

excuse my butting in ...  I've found the exports useful in the past - however, is is possible to run the export from a script in order to produce reports?  Utilities like wget won't work as the export process doesn't return the data as html.

regards

Steve

That's not true. wget does work. Try that one:

wget --no-check-certificate -O export.csv https://midas.psi.ch/elogs/linux+demo/?mode=CSV1

actaully wget doesn't care if the return is HTML or a GIF image or anything else, it just saves it into the output file.

you're right, of course, on all counts!

when I was testing wget/elog to try to automate an extract I was getting a lot of stuff like:

/Change_Log/587">Software Only</a></td><td class="92^M^H<88>^\ÿ^Y"ÿ"><a href="../Change_Log/587">23416</a></td><td class="92^M^H<88>^\ÿ^Y"Ã<a href="../Change_Log/587">New</a></td><td class="92^M^H<88>^\ÿ^Y"ÿ"><a href="../Change_Log/587">Awaited</a></td>

but I must have been getting something wrong, using your command line as an example it works perfectly!  Thanks again for elog!!

 Steve, just a word of thanks for "butting in" ... my next thought was how could I schedule an export to feed the other database so it wouldn't have to be done manually each day. Your question took care of that for me!  :)

Good community. Thanks.

(For some reason I could not add this in Dennis's thread.)

I like this new feature, BUT

I happen to have two Options:   Options System, and Options Status.

System are a very few items, whereas Status has a long list, which, like Dennis's example, can be added to. 
Keeping the latter in alpha order is great, but it's a shame that the cost is that Options System are also
sorted alphabetically, whereas it has a natural order which it would be preferable to keep - for example (and
this is made up)

Options System: 3.1, NT, 2000, XP, Vista

where the natural order here is chronological.

Perhaps the configuration file option could be more specific, for example

Sort attribute Options Status = 1

which would then NOT sort Options System.  If both are needed to be sorted, both should be specified, or back to
the original syntax which defaults to sort *all* Options.

I've just noticed that it has also sorted another Option, which are selected as radio buttons.  Again, this is a
list which has a natural - again, in this case, chronological - order.

Because of this, I'm going to have to turn off this feature as it is on my system.  I hope something can be sorted
on this.


> (For some reason I could not add this in Dennis's thread.)
> 
> I like this new feature, BUT
> 
> I happen to have two Options:   Options System, and Options Status.
> 
> System are a very few items, whereas Status has a long list, which, like Dennis's example, can be added to. 
> Keeping the latter in alpha order is great, but it's a shame that the cost is that Options System are also
> sorted alphabetically, whereas it has a natural order which it would be preferable to keep - for example (and
> this is made up)
> 
> Options System: 3.1, NT, 2000, XP, Vista
> 
> where the natural order here is chronological.
> 
> Perhaps the configuration file option could be more specific, for example
> 
> Sort attribute Options Status = 1
> 
> which would then NOT sort Options System.  If both are needed to be sorted, both should be specified, or back to
> the original syntax which defaults to sort *all* Options.

Ok, that makes sense, so I changed it to

Sort Attribute Options Status = 1

as you suggested.

> (For some reason I could not add this in Dennis's thread.)
> 
> I like this new feature, BUT
> 
> I happen to have two Options:   Options System, and Options Status.
> 
> System are a very few items, whereas Status has a long list, which, like Dennis's example, can be added to. 
> Keeping the latter in alpha order is great, but it's a shame that the cost is that Options System are also
> sorted alphabetically, whereas it has a natural order which it would be preferable to keep - for example (and
> this is made up)
> 
> Options System: 3.1, NT, 2000, XP, Vista
> 
> where the natural order here is chronological.
> 
> Perhaps the configuration file option could be more specific, for example
> 
> Sort attribute Options Status = 1
> 
> which would then NOT sort Options System.  If both are needed to be sorted, both should be specified, or back to
> the original syntax which defaults to sort *all* Options.

Thanks Stefan!  Works great.

> Ok, that makes sense, so I changed it to
> 
> Sort Attribute Options Status = 1
> 
> as you suggested.
> 
> > (For some reason I could not add this in Dennis's thread.)
> > 
> > I like this new feature, BUT
> > 
> > I happen to have two Options:   Options System, and Options Status.
> > 
> > System are a very few items, whereas Status has a long list, which, like Dennis's example, can be added to. 
> > Keeping the latter in alpha order is great, but it's a shame that the cost is that Options System are also
> > sorted alphabetically, whereas it has a natural order which it would be preferable to keep - for example (and
> > this is made up)
> > 
> > Options System: 3.1, NT, 2000, XP, Vista
> > 
> > where the natural order here is chronological.
> > 
> > Perhaps the configuration file option could be more specific, for example
> > 
> > Sort attribute Options Status = 1
> > 
> > which would then NOT sort Options System.  If both are needed to be sorted, both should be specified, or back to
> > the original syntax which defaults to sort *all* Options.

Yes, many thanks, Stefan, from me, too! It's really great that you respond so quickly to requests and suggestions.

And thanks to David for the fine tuning, great suggestion.

Dennis

> Thanks Stefan!  Works great.
> 
> > Ok, that makes sense, so I changed it to
> > 
> > Sort Attribute Options Status = 1
> > 
> > as you suggested.
> > 
> > > (For some reason I could not add this in Dennis's thread.)
> > > 
> > > I like this new feature, BUT
> > > 
> > > I happen to have two Options:   Options System, and Options Status.
> > > 
> > > System are a very few items, whereas Status has a long list, which, like Dennis's example, can be added to. 
> > > Keeping the latter in alpha order is great, but it's a shame that the cost is that Options System are also
> > > sorted alphabetically, whereas it has a natural order which it would be preferable to keep - for example (and
> > > this is made up)
> > > 
> > > Options System: 3.1, NT, 2000, XP, Vista
> > > 
> > > where the natural order here is chronological.
> > > 
> > > Perhaps the configuration file option could be more specific, for example
> > > 
> > > Sort attribute Options Status = 1
> > > 
> > > which would then NOT sort Options System.  If both are needed to be sorted, both should be specified, or back to
> > > the original syntax which defaults to sort *all* Options.

Hello Stefan.

Currently this is defined as a maximum of 100 literals in the cfg file. I would like to see the option to reference an external text file as input for this. 

As a side question, I would also like to increase the max to a greater value, for example, even 5000. I assume I can change the source (I recall var was something like "List_Option_Max") and see if that would still work, but would you know offhand if that would cause a problem anywhere else?

Regards,

Alan

(PS: Just getting started with ELog. Please excuse if these questions sound newbie. I also searched the Forum first but haven't found any answers to them yet.)

I will put this on the wish list. 

I limited this to 100 entries because it will be hard to handle it. Imagine a drop-down list box with 5000 entries. It would fill your complete screen and you still won't see all 5000 entries. In that case it might be better to use a free text field and enter the attribute value as free text.

You can increase MAX_N_LIST in elogd.c, but at some point you will get a stack overflow and elogd will just crash.

- Stefan

Hi,

I am using syntax like (from the doc):

Display Telephone = <a href="http://any.company.com/telbook.cgi?search=$Name">$Name's telephone number</a>

Until yesterday this was interpreted as HTML.

After upgrading to 2.7.7, I still get a valid link but the full HTML code is also displayed: the user sees
''<a href="http://any.company.com/telbook.cgi?search=myname">myname's telephone number</a>''
where he should only see:
''myname's telephone number''

I am 99% sure this is a consequence of the upgrade. Is there a way to get the original behaviour back?
Thanks a lot
Soren Poulsen

Display Telephone = <a href="http://any.company.com/telbook.cgi?search=$Name">$Name's telephone number</a>

Until yesterday this was interpreted as HTML.

After upgrading to 2.7.7, I still get a valid link but the full HTML code is also displayed: the user sees
''<a href="http://any.company.com/telbook.cgi?search=myname">myname's telephone number</a>''
where he should only see:
''myname's telephone number''

I am 99% sure this is a consequence of the upgrade. Is there a way to get the original behaviour back?
Thanks a lot
Soren Poulsen

 I have more precise information about the nature of this issue, which concerns the display of E-logs

In the previous version 2.7.6, E-log would generate HTML like this:

td class="attribvalue">
<a href="https://edms.cern.ch/camms/plsql/d7i_report_CV_WO_VIEW.form_7?event=15403690&button=Search">15403690</a>&nbsp;</td>

In the latest version 2.7.7, E-log generates HTML like this (for the same attribute):

<td class="attribvalue">
&lt;a href="<a href="https://edms.cern.ch/camms/plsql/d7i_report_CV_WO_VIEW.form_7?event=15575045&amp;button=Search">https://edms.cern.ch/camms/plsql/d7i_report_CV_WO_VIEW.form_7?event=15575045&amp;button=Search</a>"&gt;15575045&lt;/a&gt;&nbsp;</td>

Soren Poulsen

Display Telephone = <a href="http://any.company.com/telbook.cgi?search=$Name">$Name's telephone number</a>

Until yesterday this was interpreted as HTML.

After upgrading to 2.7.7, I still get a valid link but the full HTML code is also displayed: the user sees
''<a href="http://any.company.com/telbook.cgi?search=myname">myname's telephone number</a>''
where he should only see:
''myname's telephone number''

I am 99% sure this is a consequence of the upgrade. Is there a way to get the original behaviour back?
Thanks a lot
Soren Poulsen

You need

Allow HTML = 1

in your configuration file. See the documentation for details. This featue is new in 2.7.7.

Display Telephone = <a href="http://any.company.com/telbook.cgi?search=$Name">$Name's telephone number</a>

Until yesterday this was interpreted as HTML.

After upgrading to 2.7.7, I still get a valid link but the full HTML code is also displayed: the user sees
''<a href="http://any.company.com/telbook.cgi?search=myname">myname's telephone number</a>''
where he should only see:
''myname's telephone number''

I am 99% sure this is a consequence of the upgrade. Is there a way to get the original behaviour back?
Thanks a lot
Soren Poulsen

Thanks a lot. In fact I did not read the 2.7.7 version of the documentation, which I should have done.

Have a good aftenoon

Soren

Under some circumstances the New/Edit entry screen can invoke the init_resize() function in the onload handler for the <body> tag, but the init_resize() function is not defined.  In my case there is a log where the encoding is plain text (Default encoding = 1) and the message height is restricted (Message height = 4).  Creating or editing entries in this log generates warnings in the Firefox error console and alert boxes in IE about init_resize being undefined.

I think there is some missing logic.  In revision 2246 of elogd.c

• at line 9924, if enc_selected = 1 then init_resize() is included in the onload handler, but
• at line 9801, if enc_selected = 1 but at least one of the  "Message height" or "Message width" attributes is set then the code defining init_resize() is not include

I think you need to duplicate the checks on the Message height and Message width attributes at lines 9924, so that the init_resize() function is only included when defined.

Richard S

Perfect! Not only your analysis but also your suggested solution. I implemented that in revision 2249.

Stefan