"Default encoding" default is not as documented , posted by Kristján Jónsson on Thu Jan 10 15:24:53 2008
|
Hi,
"Default encoding" appears to have the default value of 2 (HTML) instead of 0 (ELCode) as documented in http://midas.psi.ch/elog/config.html
ELOG V2.7.0-1954 : elog.c line 8952
Kristján |
Re: "Default encoding" default is not as documented , posted by Stefan Ritt on Thu Jan 10 15:30:35 2008
|
Quote: | "Default encoding" appears to have the default value of 2 (HTML) instead of 0 (ELCode) as documented in http://midas.psi.ch/elog/config.html
ELOG V2.7.0-1954 : elog.c line 8952
Kristján |
I changed the documentation 
The reason for this is to give beginners the FCKeditor by default instead of the ELCode encoding. |
Summary view - Umlauts, posted by Uwe on Wed Nov 28 19:53:05 2007
|
Hello,
when using the summary view, the text field displays umlauts as HTML-charachters, for e. g. diesbezüglich.
Is there a chance that also this view displays umlauts as ä, ü, ö?
Thank you!
Uwe
|
Re: Summary view - Umlauts, posted by Stefan Ritt on Thu Nov 29 15:04:49 2007
|
Uwe wrote: |
Hello,
when using the summary view, the text field displays umlauts as HTML-charachters, for e. g. diesbezüglich.
Is there a chance that also this view displays umlauts as ä, ü, ö?
Thank you!
Uwe
|
I fixed this in svn revision #1971. The fix will be contained in the next release. You can test it already in the demo logbook. |
Re: Summary view - Umlauts, posted by Uwe on Thu Nov 29 18:58:32 2007
|
Stefan Ritt wrote: |
Uwe wrote: |
Hello,
when using the summary view, the text field displays umlauts as HTML-charachters, for e. g. diesbezüglich.
Is there a chance that also this view displays umlauts as ä, ü, ö?
Thank you!
Uwe
|
I fixed this in svn revision #1971. The fix will be contained in the next release. You can test it already in the demo logbook.
|
Thank you for the fix and the quick solution!
Uwe |
Re: Summary view - Umlauts, posted by Uwe on Thu Nov 29 19:13:02 2007
|
Uwe wrote: |
Stefan Ritt wrote: |
Uwe wrote: |
Hello,
when using the summary view, the text field displays umlauts as HTML-charachters, for e. g. diesbezüglich.
Is there a chance that also this view displays umlauts as ä, ü, ö?
Thank you!
Uwe
|
I fixed this in svn revision #1971. The fix will be contained in the next release. You can test it already in the demo logbook.
|
Thank you for the fix and the quick solution!
Uwe
|
Just another thing I would like to admit. We are often using the summary view. Sometimes the summary view shows the text like the following:
This is just a test
When using the Full view or clicking on the entry, those html-codes are not shown. Thanks again for the great software!
Uwe |
Re: Summary view - Umlauts, posted by Stefan Ritt on Thu Nov 29 19:25:50 2007
|
Uwe wrote: |
Just another thing I would like to admit. We are often using the summary view. Sometimes the summary view shows the text like the following:
This is just a test
When using the Full view or clicking on the entry, those html-codes are not shown. Thanks again for the great software!
Uwe
|
Ok, that's fixed now as well. |
Re: Summary view - Umlauts, posted by Uwe on Thu Nov 29 19:38:03 2007
|
Stefan Ritt wrote: |
Uwe wrote: |
Just another thing I would like to admit. We are often using the summary view. Sometimes the summary view shows the text like the following:
This is just a test
When using the Full view or clicking on the entry, those html-codes are not shown. Thanks again for the great software!
Uwe
|
Ok, that's fixed now as well.
|
Thank you very much!! I will install the new release as soon as it is available.
Best regards from Germany,
Uwe |
Completed Swedish translation, posted by Kenneth Andersson on Wed Jan 9 10:43:42 2008
|
Hi!
I have completed the Swedish translation and wonder how I can deliver it (if it´s still needed)?
//Kenneth |
Re: Completed Swedish translation, posted by Stefan Ritt on Wed Jan 9 11:00:21 2008
|
Kenneth Andersson wrote: |
I have completed the Swedish translation and wonder how I can deliver it (if it´s still needed)?
|
Sure, it's always welcome. Just email it to me. |
Re: Summary view - Umlauts, posted by Kenneth Andersson on Tue Jan 8 22:30:45 2008
|
Uwe wrote: |
Stefan Ritt wrote: |
Uwe wrote: |
Moving a logbook from one installation to another, posted by Val Schmidt on Mon Dec 17 02:17:20 2007
|
I've attempted to move a logbook from an old elog installation to a new one on another system. The version of elog is the same (2.6.1) in both. Both systems have the same name and the logbooks are and installation are going in the same place. So all paths are identical. Also, for the new installation, I've simply recompiled the same sources used to install the original one. The only difference is an upgrade in the OS.
I've rsync'd the directory and contents from the old installation to the logbooks/ directory for the new one. I then over-wrote the standard config file with the new one. I then started elogd in the new place.
What I find is
a) The default entry from the demo logbook is inserted into my logbook. This I can live with but it was unexpected.
b) The dates for all my entries as shown in my browser have years starting in 1946, rather than 2006. This is particularly odd since all of the actual log files have the correct dates.
c) The numbering of entries has been reset to 1.
Can anyone explain what I've done to mucky this up and how to fix it?
Thanks in advance,
Val
|
Re: Moving a logbook from one installation to another, posted by Stefan Ritt on Mon Dec 17 08:13:22 2007
|
Val Schmidt wrote: |
I've attempted to move a logbook from an old elog installation to a new one on another system. The version of elog is the same (2.6.1) in both. Both systems have the same name and the logbooks are and installation are going in the same place. So all paths are identical. Also, for the new installation, I've simply recompiled the same sources used to install the original one. The only difference is an upgrade in the OS.
I've rsync'd the directory and contents from the old installation to the logbooks/ directory for the new one. I then over-wrote the standard config file with the new one. I then started elogd in the new place.
What I find is
a) The default entry from the demo logbook is inserted into my logbook. This I can live with but it was unexpected.
b) The dates for all my entries as shown in my browser have years starting in 1946, rather than 2006. This is particularly odd since all of the actual log files have the correct dates.
c) The numbering of entries has been reset to 1.
|
That sounds really strange. The only thing I can think of is that the demo entry conflicted with your other entries and two of them have the same entry ID. The entry ID is a unique key which identifies each entry. If you look into the raw logbook file 011108a.log with a text editor, you will see them as
$@Mid@$: 1
Date: Thu Nov 08 18:37:57 2001
Author: Stefan Ritt
Type: Routine
Category: General
Subject: Welcome
Attachment:
Encoding: ELCode
========================================
[B]Congratulations for installing ELOG sucessfully!
[/B]
This is a demo entry to ensure the elogd server is working correctly.
Click [I]"New"[/I] to add new pages and [I]"Delete"[/I] to delete this page.
so in this case the ID is 1. When you rsync'ed your entries into the demo logbook directory, you probably got two entries with the ID 1, which screws up elogd. Try to delete the file 011108a.log before you do the rsync. If you start elogd interactively with the "-v" flag, you will see some debugging output which can you help identify some problems:
[ritt@pc5082 ~/elog]$ ./elogd -v
elogd 2.7.0 built Dec 13 2007, 08:05:12 revision 1977
Config file : /afs/psi.ch/user/r/ritt/elog/elogd.cfg
Resource dir : /afs/psi.ch/user/r/ritt/elog
Logbook dir : /afs/psi.ch/user/r/ritt/elog/logbooks/
Indexing logbook "demo" in "logbooks/demo/" ...
Config [demo], MD5=F2E39262960C779517FEE576C17B1ED0
Entries:
ID 1, 011108a.log, ofs 0, thead, MD5=81D89C3C94C6626BB7FF191026040E83
After sort:
ID 1, 011108a.log, ofs 0
ok
Server listening on port 8080 ...
|
Re: Moving a logbook from one installation to another, posted by Val Schmidt on Mon Dec 17 19:18:13 2007
|
Stefan, I'm still stumped. I'm sorry for the hassle.
I've removed all the demo entries from both my logbook and the demo. I restarted elog in verbose mode and everything seems normal. I've even run the binary from my old elog installation on the config and logbooks in the new place and it works like a champ.
So I think I've concluded that my new compilation is mucky'd up. The logbooks and config file are fine.
So for the record, the new installation is on MacOS 10.5 (Leopard). The compiler is gcc4.0. There is one warning when I compile:
src/elog.c: In function 'url_encode':
src/elog.c:209: warning: pointer targets in passing argument 2 of 'strlcpy' differ in signedness
But this is not likely the problem.
So I stuck a debug statement into the code and recompiled to see the dates that are read from the logbook. Here is what I found:
DEBUG: Thu Nov 08 18:37:57 2001
DEBUG: Sun, 09 Apr 2006 12:38:31 +52175311
DEBUG: Sun, 09 Apr 2006 12:41:17 +52175311
DEBUG: Mon, 10 Apr 2006 09:24:26 +52175311
DEBUG: Mon, 10 Apr 2006 09:29:50 +52175311
DEBUG: Mon, 10 Apr 2006 16:15:31 +52175311
DEBUG: Mon, 10 Apr 2006 18:22:16 +52175311
DEBUG: Mon, 10 Apr 2006 18:23:20 +52175311
I haven't yet been able to figure out what this last number is and if it should indeed be part of the date. Any ideas here?
Thanks,
-Val
Stefan Ritt wrote: |
Val Schmidt wrote: |
I've attempted to move a logbook from an old elog installation to a new one on another system. The version of elog is the same (2.6.1) in both. Both systems have the same name and the logbooks are and installation are going in the same place. So all paths are identical. Also, for the new installation, I've simply recompiled the same sources used to install the original one. The only difference is an upgrade in the OS.
I've rsync'd the directory and contents from the old installation to the logbooks/ directory for the new one. I then over-wrote the standard config file with the new one. I then started elogd in the new place.
What I find is
a) The default entry from the demo logbook is inserted into my logbook. This I can live with but it was unexpected.
b) The dates for all my entries as shown in my browser have years starting in 1946, rather than 2006. This is particularly odd since all of the actual log files have the correct dates.
c) The numbering of entries has been reset to 1.
|
That sounds really strange. The only thing I can think of is that the demo entry conflicted with your other entries and two of them have the same entry ID. The entry ID is a unique key which identifies each entry. If you look into the raw logbook file 011108a.log with a text editor, you will see them as
$@Mid@$: 1
Date: Thu Nov 08 18:37:57 2001
Author: Stefan Ritt
Type: Routine
Category: General
Subject: Welcome
Attachment:
Encoding: ELCode
========================================
[B]Congratulations for installing ELOG sucessfully!
[/B]
This is a demo entry to ensure the elogd server is working correctly.
Click [I]"New"[/I] to add new pages and [I]"Delete"[/I] to delete this page.
so in this case the ID is 1. When you rsync'ed your entries into the demo logbook directory, you probably got two entries with the ID 1, which screws up elogd. Try to delete the file 011108a.log before you do the rsync. If you start elogd interactively with the "-v" flag, you will see some debugging output which can you help identify some problems:
[ritt@pc5082 ~/elog]$ ./elogd -v
elogd 2.7.0 built Dec 13 2007, 08:05:12 revision 1977
Config file : /afs/psi.ch/user/r/ritt/elog/elogd.cfg
Resource dir : /afs/psi.ch/user/r/ritt/elog
Logbook dir : /afs/psi.ch/user/r/ritt/elog/logbooks/
Indexing logbook "demo" in "logbooks/demo/" ...
Config [demo], MD5=F2E39262960C779517FEE576C17B1ED0
Entries:
ID 1, 011108a.log, ofs 0, thead, MD5=81D89C3C94C6626BB7FF191026040E83
After sort:
ID 1, 011108a.log, ofs 0
ok
Server listening on port 8080 ...
|
|
Re: Moving a logbook from one installation to another, posted by Stefan Ritt on Tue Dec 18 09:41:16 2007
|
First of all, you should also describe what has been improved. While for you it is important what is not working, for me it is also important what is working, to get more information if such a problem should occur again. So is your demo entry still there? Is the numbering still starting from 1 after you removed the demo entry?
The suspicious dates Sun, 09 Apr 2006 12:38:31 +52175311 ring actually a bell: Under MacOS, there was always the problem with the timezone. The last number in the date string is the time zone in minutes (where the hour has actually 100 minutes). So an GMT offset of one hour would be +0100, two hours +0200 and so on. Somehow it seems like your number are screwed up completely. So +52175311 is equivalent to ~59 years, which explains why your dates are around 1946. The question is now how did these number go into your entries? Have you copied the *.log files over from the old location or generated newly? Did the old files already have this problem (load the *.log files into an ASCII editor!). The time zone is handled inside ELOG in the following function:
/* workaround for wong timezone under MAX OSX */
long my_timezone()
{
#if defined(OS_MACOSX) || defined(__FreeBSD__)
time_t tp;
time(&tp);
return -localtime(&tp)->tm_gmtoff;
#else
return timezone;
#endif
}
As you can see, MAXOSX needs a different treatment. I got this code from someone else since I don't have a Mac available. One suspicion I have is that the variable OS_MACOSX is not defined correctly. There is some code which checks for __APPLE__ and then defines OS_MACOSX. Maybe put a print statement next to time(&tp); to see if that code is really executed.
Val Schmidt wrote: |
Stefan, I'm still stumped. I'm sorry for the hassle.
I've removed all the demo entries from both my logbook and the demo. I restarted elog in verbose mode and everything seems normal. I've even run the binary from my old elog installation on the config and logbooks in the new place and it works like a champ.
So I think I've concluded that my new compilation is mucky'd up. The logbooks and config file are fine.
So for the record, the new installation is on MacOS 10.5 (Leopard). The compiler is gcc4.0. There is one warning when I compile:
src/elog.c: In function 'url_encode':
src/elog.c:209: warning: pointer targets in passing argument 2 of 'strlcpy' differ in signedness
But this is not likely the problem.
So I stuck a debug statement into the code and recompiled to see the dates that are read from the logbook. Here is what I found:
DEBUG: Thu Nov 08 18:37:57 2001
DEBUG: Sun, 09 Apr 2006 12:38:31 +52175311
DEBUG: Sun, 09 Apr 2006 12:41:17 +52175311
DEBUG: Mon, 10 Apr 2006 09:24:26 +52175311
DEBUG: Mon, 10 Apr 2006 09:29:50 +52175311
DEBUG: Mon, 10 Apr 2006 16:15:31 +52175311
DEBUG: Mon, 10 Apr 2006 18:22:16 +52175311
DEBUG: Mon, 10 Apr 2006 18:23:20 +52175311
I haven't yet been able to figure out what this last number is and if it should indeed be part of the date. Any ideas here?
Thanks,
-Val
Stefan Ritt wrote: |
Val Schmidt wrote: |
I've attempted to move a logbook from an old elog installation to a new one on another system. The version of elog is the same (2.6.1) in both. Both systems have the same name and the logbooks are and installation are going in the same place. So all paths are identical. Also, for the new installation, I've simply recompiled the same sources used to install the original one. The only difference is an upgrade in the OS.
I've rsync'd the directory and contents from the old installation to the logbooks/ directory for the new one. I then over-wrote the standard config file with the new one. I then started elogd in the new place.
What I find is
a) The default entry from the demo logbook is inserted into my logbook. This I can live with but it was unexpected.
b) The dates for all my entries as shown in my browser have years starting in 1946, rather than 2006. This is particularly odd since all of the actual log files have the correct dates.
c) The numbering of entries has been reset to 1.
|
That sounds really strange. The only thing I can think of is that the demo entry conflicted with your other entries and two of them have the same entry ID. The entry ID is a unique key which identifies each entry. If you look into the raw logbook file 011108a.log with a text editor, you will see them as
$@Mid@$: 1
Date: Thu Nov 08 18:37:57 2001
Author: Stefan Ritt
Type: Routine
Category: General
Subject: Welcome
Attachment:
Encoding: ELCode
========================================
[B]Congratulations for installing ELOG sucessfully!
[/B]
This is a demo entry to ensure the elogd server is working correctly.
Click [I]"New"[/I] to add new pages and [I]"Delete"[/I] to delete this page.
so in this case the ID is 1. When you rsync'ed your entries into the demo logbook directory, you probably got two entries with the ID 1, which screws up elogd. Try to delete the file 011108a.log before you do the rsync. If you start elogd interactively with the "-v" flag, you will see some debugging output which can you help identify some problems:
[ritt@pc5082 ~/elog]$ ./elogd -v
elogd 2.7.0 built Dec 13 2007, 08:05:12 revision 1977
Config file : /afs/psi.ch/user/r/ritt/elog/elogd.cfg
Resource dir : /afs/psi.ch/user/r/ritt/elog
Logbook dir : /afs/psi.ch/user/r/ritt/elog/logbooks/
Indexing logbook "demo" in "logbooks/demo/" ...
Config [demo], MD5=F2E39262960C779517FEE576C17B1ED0
Entries:
ID 1, 011108a.log, ofs 0, thead, MD5=81D89C3C94C6626BB7FF191026040E83
After sort:
ID 1, 011108a.log, ofs 0
ok
Server listening on port 8080 ...
|
|
|
ELog Friendly Reporting Tools, posted by Matt on Wed Dec 12 16:05:00 2007
|
We have used ELog for some time now (within the IT industry) for several things (on-call tracking, after-hours work, knowledge base and a few other uses in development). Now that we have a good base of data, we would like to do some trending analysis. We have used Excel in the past for this, but it is rather time consuming. Does anyone have recommendations for tools (hopefully open source) they have used? I know nearly anything will since ELog uses flat files, but I'm looking for recommendations that you all know works well. |
Print Function, posted by Adam Blandford on Wed Dec 5 13:10:52 2007
|
While it is possible to print a logbook using the standard web browser print command in the Full or Summary view, a dedicated print function allowing the user to print out a hardcopy of a particular logbook would be very helpful.
Cheers
Adam
P.S. Thankyou for the response in elog:65671 |
Re: Print Function, posted by Stefan Ritt on Wed Dec 5 21:33:48 2007
|
Adam Blandford wrote: |
While it is possible to print a logbook using the standard web browser print command in the Full or Summary view, a dedicated print function allowing the user to print out a hardcopy of a particular logbook would be very helpful.
Cheers
Adam
P.S. Thankyou for the response in elog:65671
|
This is possible since the beginning: Click on Find, then check Display full entries and Printable output and hit Search. You get then a single page containing all entries from the logbook which you can easily print to get a hardcopy. |
Icon comment, posted by Uwe on Thu Nov 29 21:40:29 2007
|
Hello,
one idea for improvement. When using the option 'Icon comment' this comment is shown when creating a new entry and moving with he mouse over the icon but it is not displayed in full or summary view. In full or summary view the filename is shown. Not really important, but perhaps an improvement.
Thanks!
Uwe |
Re: Icon comment, posted by Stefan Ritt on Mon Dec 3 09:05:16 2007
|
Uwe wrote: |
one idea for improvement. When using the option 'Icon comment' this comment is shown when creating a new entry and moving with he mouse over the icon but it is not displayed in full or summary view. In full or summary view the filename is shown. Not really important, but perhaps an improvement.
|
I implemented this request in SVN revision #1974. |
Re: Icon comment, posted by Uwe on Mon Dec 3 11:25:54 2007
|
Stefan Ritt wrote: |
Uwe wrote: |
one idea for improvement. When using the option 'Icon comment' this comment is shown when creating a new entry and moving with he mouse over the icon but it is not displayed in full or summary view. In full or summary view the filename is shown. Not really important, but perhaps an improvement.
|
I implemented this request in SVN revision #1974.
|
Thank you!
Uwe |
|
ELOG V3.1.5-3fb85fa6 | | |