Here's the issue. We use elog to develope products we need to be able to see all the thumbnail images in a

particular logbook. Our default view is to use the threaded view fully expanded in order to have all the thumbnails

be displayed for each product. This works fine but when we move one message to another logbook the thumbnails

end up getting broken and won't be displayed. The only way to fix this is to remove the image and re-upload the

picture after the message is moved. This is not a good option because we have hundrends of items that are

constantly being moved around from logbook to logbook. Any ideas?

Regards,

Mike

EDIT:

On further inspection it seems that when you are moving messages to another log book the image date filename

is re-written which of course breaks the html link to the image.  Is there anyway to supress this so that the filename

stays in tact when it's moved from one book to another. I don't see why the name of an attachment has to get changed

just because something is moved around.

I fixed this in revision #2204. The attachment names now stay the same. There is one tiny risk of screwing up, namely if you have the same attachment name in two different logbooks (accidentally also submitted at the same second and therefore the same time stamp). If you then copy these two entries to a third logbook, one attachment will overwrite the other one, but that risk is indeed really small. I actually had to re-write the link to the attachment inside the text body (even differently for ELCode and HTML encoding). So I'm not 100% sure I covered all cases, so just give it a try.

 This is a major improvement. The only issue now is when we embed an image in the body of the message elog makes a nice thumbnail. When you move the message to another logbook the thumbnail doesn't work and instead it shows the MASSIVE full size version of the picture instead. Is that possible to fix?

Thanks Stefan!

Mike

Can you try revision #2206? 

 Stefan,

Works perfectly, thanks for the fix you rock!

Mike

elogd continues to run after a SIGHUP. If a second SIGHUP is received the daemon terminates.
This was observed on Solaris 10 (SPARC).
The documentation states that elogd should re-read configuration after receiving SIGHUP.

> elogd continues to run after a SIGHUP. If a second SIGHUP is received the daemon terminates.
> This was observed on Solaris 10 (SPARC).
> The documentation states that elogd should re-read configuration after receiving SIGHUP.

I tried to reproduce this but without success. I could send many SIGHUPs without the daemon terminating. Maybe 
you modified the configuration file in between and elogd barked out because of some wrong configuration? Try to 
start the daemon interactively and see what exactly happens if you send several SIGHUPs.

> > elogd continues to run after a SIGHUP. If a second SIGHUP is received the daemon terminates.
> > This was observed on Solaris 10 (SPARC).
> > The documentation states that elogd should re-read configuration after receiving SIGHUP.
> 
> I tried to reproduce this but without success. I could send many SIGHUPs without the daemon terminating. Maybe 
> you modified the configuration file in between and elogd barked out because of some wrong configuration? Try to 
> start the daemon interactively and see what exactly happens if you send several SIGHUPs.

The problem is that under Solaris signal handlers installed via signal() get uninstalled *before* the signal handler
is called.  Thus the second time elogd receives a SIGHUP, you get the default action, which is to kill the process.

The solution is to use the POSIX sigaction() call instead of signal(). 

> > > elogd continues to run after a SIGHUP. If a second SIGHUP is received the daemon terminates.
> > > This was observed on Solaris 10 (SPARC).
> > > The documentation states that elogd should re-read configuration after receiving SIGHUP.
> > 
> > I tried to reproduce this but without success. I could send many SIGHUPs without the daemon terminating. Maybe 
> > you modified the configuration file in between and elogd barked out because of some wrong configuration? Try to 
> > start the daemon interactively and see what exactly happens if you send several SIGHUPs.
> 
> The problem is that under Solaris signal handlers installed via signal() get uninstalled *before* the signal handler
> is called.  Thus the second time elogd receives a SIGHUP, you get the default action, which is to kill the process.
> 
> The solution is to use the POSIX sigaction() call instead of signal(). 

Can you try to modify the signal() calls into sigaction(). If this really works under Solaris, I will incorporate this 
then into the distribution.

> > > > elogd continues to run after a SIGHUP. If a second SIGHUP is received the daemon terminates.
> > > > This was observed on Solaris 10 (SPARC).
> > > > The documentation states that elogd should re-read configuration after receiving SIGHUP.
> > > 
> > > I tried to reproduce this but without success. I could send many SIGHUPs without the daemon terminating. Maybe 
> > > you modified the configuration file in between and elogd barked out because of some wrong configuration? Try to 
> > > start the daemon interactively and see what exactly happens if you send several SIGHUPs.
> > 
> > The problem is that under Solaris signal handlers installed via signal() get uninstalled *before* the signal handler
> > is called.  Thus the second time elogd receives a SIGHUP, you get the default action, which is to kill the process.
> > 
> > The solution is to use the POSIX sigaction() call instead of signal(). 
> 
> Can you try to modify the signal() calls into sigaction(). If this really works under Solaris, I will incorporate this 
> then into the distribution.

Here is the patch.  It works under both Solaris and Linux.

> Here is the patch.  It works under both Solaris and Linux.

Thanks! I put that into revision #2207.

Hi Stefan,

When Moving entry (and replies) from one log book to another, is it possible to prevent elog from renumbering
the entries' ID number(s) ($@MID@$).  While it may not be good practice, we've referred to these numbers in
cross-referencing, and it all goes wrong when an entry is moved from an "Open" thread to a "Closed" thread (cf
your FAQ about marking of whole threads).

In the cases I'm thinking about, i.e. from main logbook to archive logbook(s), there would never be a clash of
ID number.

Thanks,

David Pilgram.

Hi Stefan,

Any possibility on this one?

David Pilgram.
> Hi Stefan,
> 
> When Moving entry (and replies) from one log book to another, is it possible to prevent elog from renumbering
> the entries' ID number(s) ($@MID@$).  While it may not be good practice, we've referred to these numbers in
> cross-referencing, and it all goes wrong when an entry is moved from an "Open" thread to a "Closed" thread (cf
> your FAQ about marking of whole threads).
> 
> In the cases I'm thinking about, i.e. from main logbook to archive logbook(s), there would never be a clash of
> ID number.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> David Pilgram.

> Hi Stefan,
> 
> When Moving entry (and replies) from one log book to another, is it possible to prevent elog from renumbering
> the entries' ID number(s) ($@MID@$).  While it may not be good practice, we've referred to these numbers in
> cross-referencing, and it all goes wrong when an entry is moved from an "Open" thread to a "Closed" thread (cf
> your FAQ about marking of whole threads).
> 
> In the cases I'm thinking about, i.e. from main logbook to archive logbook(s), there would never be a clash of
> ID number.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> David Pilgram.

I have implemented this feature in revision 2205. You need to set the new flag "Preserve IDs = 1" in the 
configuration. I have not tested this extensively, but I'm sure you will do it ;-)

Thanks Stefan,  Downloading shortly and I'll let you know ;-)
> > Hi Stefan,
> > 
> > When Moving entry (and replies) from one log book to another, is it possible to prevent elog from renumbering
> > the entries' ID number(s) ($@MID@$).  While it may not be good practice, we've referred to these numbers in
> > cross-referencing, and it all goes wrong when an entry is moved from an "Open" thread to a "Closed" thread (cf
> > your FAQ about marking of whole threads).
> > 
> > In the cases I'm thinking about, i.e. from main logbook to archive logbook(s), there would never be a clash of
> > ID number.
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > 
> > David Pilgram.
> 
> I have implemented this feature in revision 2205. You need to set the new flag "Preserve IDs = 1" in the 
> configuration. I have not tested this extensively, but I'm sure you will do it ;-)

Hi,

There's seems to be a memory leak with elogd.exe running windows.  I had this problem with older version of elogd.exe, i've just upgrade to the latest and the problems still exist. I've had this issue with earlier versions.  I've just upgrade elog to the latest 2.76 version. The memory leak still persist. I really appreciate if you or anyone here can help me resolve this issue.

Thank!

JH

ELOG has been carefully designed not to contain memory leaks. The server for this forum for example runs for months without problem:

[ritt@midas ~]$ ps aux | grep elogd

elog      1958  0.4  3.1  39412 32940 ?        Ss   May09 178:16 /usr/local/sbin/elogd -D -c /usr/local/elog/elogd.cfg

So if you have a problem, it must be specific to your installation. You should note that if you up- or download big attachents, memory gets allocated for some network buffers to contain these attachments. The buffer is kept to contain the largest attachment, it will never shrink. But once established, it will also not grow. If you see however a constant increase in memory consumption, I would appreciate if you tell me how you do this. Like which configuration you use, if you just read entries or also upload them, etc. etc. Once I can reproduce exactly your problem, I can try to fix it. 

I am trying to add additional information to the subject of new entries:

Subst subject = $subject [INCIDENT $message id]
Subst on reply subject = Re: $subject
Fixed Attributes Reply = Subject

However, the new entry subject looks like:

this is my subject [INCIDENT this is my subject [INCIDENT $message id]

I'm not sure if there's a problem with the substitution or if this is just not allowed (I'm having LISP flashbacks).

By the way, if I use "Subst on reply subject" I get the behavior I would like but the original entry in the thread doesn't contain the appended data:

Subst on reply subject = Re: $subject [INCIDENT $message id]

Any help would be appreciated.

Alex

Subst subject = $subject [INCIDENT $message id]
Subst on reply subject = Re: $subject
Fixed Attributes Reply = Subject

this is my subject [INCIDENT this is my subject [INCIDENT $message id]

Subst on reply subject = Re: $subject [INCIDENT $message id]

The problem here is that the subsitution is executed before the entry is committed to the database. The message ID is assigned however only in the commit. So at the time of the substitution, the $message id is not available. When you do the reply however, the message id is valid and subsituted correctly. I see at this moment no clever solution for your problem (maybe "Subst on edit", but then you have to edit/submit each message manually once).

Hi.  I'm pretty new to ELOG, so I'm not sure if I'm doing something wrong.

I have a bunch of fields set so that after an entry has been submitted, they cannot edit certain fields.  When I click the edit button, everything looks restricted as it should be, but if I click Preview, the user is then able to change the fixed attributes.

Is there anyway to remove the preview button inside the edit page, or is anyone else having this issue?

Thanks,

Allen

Thanks for reporting this bug. I fixed it in revision #2203. 

Hi

I am having a little problem with e-log that I can easily reproduce.

I have defined a number of constraints on my e-log fields and I am testing what happens when the user does not respect them.

So this only happens when I am not observing the input formats or the mandatory fields.

This is the GDB trace. This is not very verbose, so I must learn to use the other tracers, I guess.

Soren

It would be best if I could reproduce your problem. So can you start from a very simple configuration file, add your constraints until the problme happens, and then send me the config file? 

Hi

The problem is not exactly what I thought, but I did track it down. Here is a logbook definition that reliably creates a segmentation fault in e-log. This logbook's only useful purpose is in fact to create a segmentation fault:

You select "New", then "Select", without entering anything.

--------------

Login user = Admin

Attributes = Link

Change Link = <a href="https://$Link"">$Link</a>

---------------

I would be able to create some more debugging information of course, if needed.
 

Regards

Soren

I had finally the same problem. This is due to a bug indeed inside is_script(). It has been fixed in revision 2201. 

I couldn't find an obvious solution to the problem. I'd like to suppress email

notification to the author of a message. I've had some people complaining

that when they use elog they don't want to get an email about what they wrote

since they wrote it.

Is it possible?

Regards,

Mike

Actually I do want to receive a copy, just to be sure that the emails got sent out correctly. I agree that an option would be good for that but it's not implemented right now. An alternative solution is to define a filter in their email client to discard these messages (like if subject contains ELOG and sender equals your own mail address).