Re: Quicklink does not work for one field, posted by mark james on Mon Jan 23 18:35:52 2006
|
| mark james wrote: |
| Stefan Ritt wrote: |
| mark james wrote: | | I am not so bold as to log this as a bug but one of my Quicklink fields just do not work. |
Sorry my late reply, but now I have fixed this problem. The update is under SVN and will be contained in the next release. |
Thanks for that. I am now using ver V2.6.1-1622. So I guess that doesn't qualify as a "next release". I wonder if there is anything I could do to work around the issue?
Mark |
In fact now the dropdown seems to be working but when I 'tick' an entry, it is not being written to the ascii file. |
|
Re: Quicklink does not work for one field, posted by Stefan Ritt on Tue Jan 24 08:11:13 2006
|
| mark james wrote: |
| mark james wrote: |
| Stefan Ritt wrote: |
| mark james wrote: | | I am not so bold as to log this as a bug but one of my Quicklink fields just do not work. |
Sorry my late reply, but now I have fixed this problem. The update is under SVN and will be contained in the next release. |
Thanks for that. I am now using ver V2.6.1-1622. So I guess that doesn't qualify as a "next release". I wonder if there is anything I could do to work around the issue?
Mark |
In fact now the dropdown seems to be working but when I 'tick' an entry, it is not being written to the ascii file. |
Can you try V2.6.1-1634? I fixed several issues with ticking entries coming from "MOptions" lists. |
|
Re: Suggestion additional ElCodes, posted by Stefan Ritt on Tue Jan 24 22:52:48 2006
|
| T. Ribbrock wrote: | However, there are two things I'm missing:
- Headings
It would be great to have a range of [H1][/H1], [H2][/H2], ... tags that map directly to their HTML counterparts (and have buttons, of course...  ). That makes structuring an entry much easier in my opinion (and the output is easier to deal with for tools like html2ps) and I'm really missing those.
- Tables
This one is probably more difficult to add, but support for simple tables would be enough. But this is more a "nice to have"...
|
Yes, I missed tables myself already. The headings I just put into the current SVN version (see this forum for how it works). Tables are a bit harder to implement and will come later. Do you have a proposal for a possible syntax? A 1:1 relation to HTML would look like this:
|
[tr][th]heading1[/th][th]heading2[/th][/tr]
[tr][td]data1[/td][td]data2[/td][/tr]
|
But that does not look very sexy to me. Maybe somehting like
|
| heading 1 | heading 2 | heading 3
| |
| data 1 | data 2 | data 3
|
this looks a bit like the "pipe" mode from a Wiki
what do you think? |
|
Re: Access to global configuration in v2.6.1, posted by Giorgio Croci Candiani on Wed Jan 25 01:08:06 2006
|
> > I just installed v.2.6.1 coming from the previous 2.6.0 (on Win2000)
> > When I access the "configuration" function from a logbook, in the cfg page I only see two buttons in the header
> > (save or cancel); in the previous version I saw more buttons there ("global config", "create new logbook" and so
> > on), so here I'm unable to access global configuration or logbook management (except for current logbook options).
>
> I tried to reproduce your problem, but could not. In my windows installation it looks fine. You only see the
> (save and cancel) buttons only if you go to "Change [global]", otherwise you see the "Change [global]", "Delete
> this logbook" etc. buttons. Have you tried with the default elogd.cfg which comes from the distribution?
Here I am again... I built and installed v2.6.1 also on a different system, this time on linux; i tried both with the
existing cfg file and with the new cfg.
Choosing "configuration", I still only see the current logbook configuration file section with "Save" and "cancel"
buttons, no access to global config whatsoever; the same as I saw on windows version. I tried version 2.6.1-1622.
Regards
Giorgio |
Re: Access to global configuration in v2.6.1, posted by Stefan Ritt on Wed Jan 25 08:24:28 2006 
|
> Here I am again... I built and installed v2.6.1 also on a different system, this time on linux; i tried both
with the
> existing cfg file and with the new cfg.
> Choosing "configuration", I still only see the current logbook configuration file section with "Save" and "cancel"
> buttons, no access to global config whatsoever; the same as I saw on windows version. I tried version 2.6.1-1622.
I tried again, using the configuration file from the distribution (elog:1627/1). Hitting "config", I see the picture
attached (elog:1627/2). So it's a mystery why it is different in your case... |
|
Re: Access to global configuration in v2.6.1, posted by Giorgio Croci Candiani on Wed Jan 25 12:08:13 2006
|
> I tried again, using the configuration file from the distribution (elog:1627/1). Hitting "config", I see the picture
> attached (elog:1627/2). So it's a mystery why it is different in your case...
Indeed... I peeked into the code, and I got the feeling it could be a matter of incorrect user setup (though I have no
users/authorizations defined at all) or maybe browser cookies. A thin trail, but I'll try some debug directly on the
code and, should I come up with something, I'll surely notice you.
Thanks for your support! |
|
Re: Access to global configuration in v2.6.1, posted by Stefan Ritt on Wed Jan 25 12:10:46 2006
|
> or maybe browser cookies.
That rings a bell. If you change user permissions (like password file/no password file/rename logbooks) you might be
fooled by old cookies. Just delete all cookies in your browser and try again. |
|
Re: Suggestion additional ElCodes, posted by T. Ribbrock on Wed Jan 25 12:31:14 2006
|
| Stefan Ritt wrote: |
Yes, I missed tables myself already. The headings I just put into the current SVN version (see this forum for how it works).
|
Very nice, thanks! I'm a bit torn as to whether I like the way I have to enter the level by keyboard or whether I'd rather see something like with the smileys (i.e. some "level menu" opens once "H" is pressed). The former is faster, while the latter doesn't require moving between the mouse and the keyboard. But that's just a detail - not really that important.
| Stefan Ritt wrote: | Tables are a bit harder to implement and will come later. Do you have a proposal for a possible syntax?
[...]
Maybe somehting like
|
| heading 1 | heading 2 | heading 3
| |
| data 1 | data 2 | data 3
|
this looks a bit like the "pipe" mode from a Wiki
what do you think? |
Yup, I remember using that kind of "pipe" structure in Wikis and I actually liked it. I think it's a lot easier to read in the "source" as well - and it reminds me remotely of LaTeX...  Also, it doesn't require much to just type it out instead of using buttons to make the cells. Definitely good enough for the simple type of tables I had in mind! |