Quick Filter and boolean option question, posted by Arno Teunisse on Fri Oct 19 22:59:31 2007
|
; BUG : When "Contract" is at the second position in the "Attributes".
; We See in the "Quick Filter" a pulldown showing "Serial Number" with only "0" or "1" ,
; this is NOT what i want or is expected !!!
[WRONG]
Attributes = Server , Contract , ContractID, Serienummer,Locatie , Category , TEST4
Options Category = Server, Printer , Disk, Router
; Please notice that the boolean attribute is at the second position in the attributes <list>,
;this is a bug, otherwise the "Quick Filter" gets it wrong. So Boolean attributes must always
;be the last item when defining the Attributes
Options Contract = boolean
Quick Filter = Server , Serienummer , Category
; This is OK : Just moving the "Contract" to the end of the "Attributes"
; Now the "Quick Filter" is a normal entrie field and not a pulldown.
; So , now i can enter a serialnumber. This is what i want and is expected.
[OK]
Attributes = Server , ContractID, Serienummer,Locatie , Category , TEST4 , Contract
Options Category = Server, Printer , Disk, Router
; Please notice that the boolean attribute is the last in the attributes <list>, this is a bug, otherwise the "Quick Filter" gets it wrong. So Boolean attributes must always be the last item when defining the Attributes
Options Contract = boolean
Quick Filter = Server , Serienummer , Category
Just switch between "wrong" and "OK" to see the "quick filter" changes. |
Re: Quick Filter and boolean option question, posted by Arno Teunisse on Sun Oct 21 00:17:34 2007
|
| Arno Teunisse wrote: | ; BUG : When "Contract" is at the second position in the "Attributes".
; We See in the "Quick Filter" a pulldown showing "Serienummer" with only "0" or "1" ,
; this is NOT what i want or is expected !!!
[WRONG]
Attributes = Server , Contract , ContractID, Serienummer,Locatie , Category , TEST4
Options Category = Server, Printer , Disk, Router
; Please notice that the boolean attribute is at the second position in the attributes <list>,
;this is a bug, otherwise the "Quick Filter" gets it wrong. So Boolean attributes must always
;be the last item when defining the Attributes
Options Contract = boolean
Quick Filter = Server , Serienummer , Category
; This is OK : Just moving the "Contract" to the end of the "Attributes"
; Now the "Quick Filter" is a normal entrie field and not a pulldown.
; So , now i can enter a Serialnumber. This is what i want and is expected.
[OK]
Attributes = Server , ContractID, Serienummer,Locatie , Category , TEST4 , Contract
Options Category = Server, Printer , Disk, Router
; Please notice that the boolean attribute is the last in the attributes <list>, this is a bug, otherwise the "Quick Filter" gets it wrong. So Boolean attributes must always be the last item when defining the Attributes
Options Contract = boolean
Quick Filter = Server , Serienummer , Category
Just switch between "wrong" and "OK" to see the "quick filter" changes. |
| Arno Teunisse wrote: |
Hello again
Maybe it's not nice to begin with "BUG:" but i was in a hurry. Sorry for that.
Because I did not get an answer i think i must ask it in an other way : De [WRONG] and [OK] configurations are identical except for the order in which the Attributes appear. This causes the "Quick Filter" problem, as you can see when changing between the [Wrong] and [OK] tabs.
Am I missing some config setting or i am lost here ?
By the way : I see you are running version 2.6.5-1937. Is there a windows version of that too ?
with kind regards
|
|
|
Re: Quick Filter and boolean option question, posted by Stefan Ritt on Sun Oct 21 12:21:09 2007
|
| Arno Teunisse wrote: | | Because I did not get an answer i think i must ask it in an other way |
The reason you did not get an answer was not that you asked the wrong way, but simply that I'm pretty busy these days. So just be patient, I won't forget you. And sending several support requests certainly does not help you  |
|
Re: Quick Filter and boolean option question, posted by Arno Teunisse on Sun Oct 21 22:51:07 2007
|
Thanks Stefan , i'll wait. Sorry.
| Stefan Ritt wrote: |
| Arno Teunisse wrote: | | Because I did not get an answer i think i must ask it in an other way |
The reason you did not get an answer was not that you asked the wrong way, but simply that I'm pretty busy these days. So just be patient, I won't forget you. And sending several support requests certainly does not help you |
|
|
Re: Quick Filter and boolean option question, posted by Stefan Ritt on Mon Oct 22 17:27:45 2007
|
| Arno Teunisse wrote: | When "Contract" is at the second position in the "Attributes".
We See in the "Quick Filter" a pulldown showing "Serial Number" with only "0" or "1" ,
this is NOT what i want or is expected !!! |
Yes, this is indeed a bug. I fixed it in SVN revision 1940. There will be soon a new release containing this fix. |
Add date and time stamp to file upload, posted by Fergus Lynch on Thu Oct 4 12:03:30 2007
|
Hi,
Been using ELOG for a couple of years now and I am very impressed with its functionality.
I would like to request a new feature - add date and time stamp to file upload. We use ELOG (amongst other things!) as a change log and this would really allow allow more accurate records to be kept. For instance we upload router config files (to record changes)and having the exact upload date would be a big enhancement, especially when there are a lot of attachments.
Many Thanks in Advance
Fergus |
|
Re: Add date and time stamp to file upload, posted by Stefan Ritt on Thu Oct 4 17:19:56 2007
|
| Fergus Lynch wrote: | | I would like to request a new feature - add date and time stamp to file upload. We use ELOG (amongst other things!) as a change log and this would really allow allow more accurate records to be kept. For instance we upload router config files (to record changes)and having the exact upload date would be a big enhancement, especially when there are a lot of attachments. |
There is already a time and a date stamp. If you look in the logbook directory, you see attachments preceded with the date and time when they were submitted. You can see this date/time when you click on the attachment, such as in
http://midas.psi.ch/elogs/Config+Examples/040519_000348/elogd.cfg
where you will see it even in the URL (May 19th, 2004, 0:03:48) in the above case. I agree that this is not so obvious. If you make a proposal where this date/time should be displayed, I can easily add it. |
|
Re: Add date and time stamp to file upload, posted by Fergus Lynch on Tue Oct 9 11:48:17 2007
|
| Stefan Ritt wrote: |
| Fergus Lynch wrote: | | I would like to request a new feature - add date and time stamp to file upload. We use ELOG (amongst other things!) as a change log and this would really allow allow more accurate records to be kept. For instance we upload router config files (to record changes)and having the exact upload date would be a big enhancement, especially when there are a lot of attachments. |
There is already a time and a date stamp. If you look in the logbook directory, you see attachments preceded with the date and time when they were submitted. You can see this date/time when you click on the attachment, such as in
http://midas.psi.ch/elogs/Config+Examples/040519_000348/elogd.cfg
where you will see it even in the URL (May 19th, 2004, 0:03:48) in the above case. I agree that this is not so obvious. If you make a proposal where this date/time should be displayed, I can easily add it. |
Hi, I think this would be great new functionality, so I would propose the date/time stamp for an uploaded file was placed just after the file size text that appears at the far right hand side of all attachments.
Many Thanks
Fergus |
|
Re: Add date and time stamp to file upload, posted by Stefan Ritt on Fri Oct 19 21:44:00 2007
|
| Fergus Lynch wrote: | | Hi, I think this would be great new functionality, so I would propose the date/time stamp for an uploaded file was placed just after the file size text that appears at the far right hand side of all attachments. |
I implemented this as you can see at elog:Linux+Demo/14 . The new feature will be contained in the next release, and will also work for entries made before this feature was implemented. |
default css style , posted by Arno Teunisse on Thu Oct 18 23:18:03 2007
|
The default tiny.css has a bug in it.
It's calling a class that does not exists. The class name is : list1h and list2h. So I added :
/* Just highlighting the last entries , Added by Arno Teunisse . Elog is calling
these, but they are not defined in the css style sheets*/
.list1h { border:1px solid #3080FF;
border-top:1px solid white;
border-left:1px solid white;
background-color:Yellow;
text-align:center;
}
.list2h {
border:1px solid #3080FF;
border-top:1px solid white;
border-left:1px solid white;
background-color:Yellow;
text-align:center;
}
If these are NOT defined the user that edit's an entrie and does a "list" afterwards get's the colorization of a menu and all is shifted onto the left.
with kind regards
Arno Teunisse
|
|
Re: default css style , posted by Stefan Ritt on Fri Oct 19 09:08:06 2007
|
| Arno Teunisse wrote: | The default tiny.css has a bug in it.
It's calling a class that does not exists. The class name is : list1h and list2h. |
Thanks Arno. I didn't touch tiny.css since a couple of years now, and the list1h/2h were introduced after I wrote tiny.css. Actually compact.css had the same problem. I added this to the SVN version, so it will be included in the next release. |
|
how to use the find calendar, posted by Arno Teunisse on Sat Oct 6 16:47:44 2007
|
Hello
In the find page you use a calendar popup from which the user can click on a date and the date boxes are filled in with the correct date. Can I use that calendar also? If so, can you show me an example of it's usage. |
|
Re: how to use the find calendar, posted by Arno Teunisse on Sat Oct 6 17:15:59 2007
|
| Arno Teunisse wrote: | Hello
In the find page you use a calendar popup from which the user can click on a date and the date boxes are filled in with the correct date. Can I use that calendar also? If so, can you show me an example of it's usage.
I found it , Sorry for the question, ( RTFM ) Read The Fucking Manual )
|
|
|
testing for the limit of the elog database , posted by Arno Teunisse on Sat Oct 6 15:39:12 2007
|
Hello
To test elog i created a very large databasefile ( 071006a.log = 39MB ) via an import.
Nothing special. At the import I already got a message to increase "Max content length" to 22420822 in the global section. Below is the what i've done. There are no attachments involved, as you can see.
[global]
port = 80;
Max content length = 22420822
[DAP]
Theme = default
Attributes=Klant,Doc
Quick filter = Klant
So there are only 2 user defined fields in the database.
Everything works ......... but terrible slow : is there a rule of thumb for the size of the database ? |
|
Re: testing for the limit of the elog database , posted by Stefan Ritt on Sat Oct 6 15:44:51 2007
|
| Arno Teunisse wrote: | So there are only 2 user defined fields in the database.
Everything works ......... but terrible slow : is there a rule of thumb for the size of the database ? |
Yes. The rule of thumb is that currently elog runs fine for a few 10000 entries. At 100000 entries it starts getting slow. I have already in my to-do list the task to improve the performance for large databases, and I have a rough idea where the bottleneck is, but I pushed the priority low because not many people have large databases right now (but it might change in the future). How many entries do you have? (It's not the size of the entries, but the number!) |
|
Re: testing for the limit of the elog database , posted by Arno Teunisse on Sat Oct 6 15:56:13 2007
|
| Stefan Ritt wrote: |
| Arno Teunisse wrote: | So there are only 2 user defined fields in the database.
Everything works ......... but terrible slow : is there a rule of thumb for the size of the database ? |
Yes. The rule of thumb is that currently elog runs fine for a few 10000 entries. At 100000 entries it starts getting slow. I have already in my to-do list the task to improve the performance for large databases, and I have a rough idea where the bottleneck is, but I pushed the priority low because not many people have large databases right now (but it might change in the future). How many entries do you have? (It's not the size of the entries, but the number!) |
That's a quick answer. I just was testing. I'm trying to introduce elog at work, so i'm not having an actual database in production. In the test database I had 125386 entries. Two column: "Customers name" and "documents".
By the way : my email address has changed : how do I change that ??
Thanks |
|
Re: testing for the limit of the elog database , posted by Stefan Ritt on Sat Oct 6 16:11:50 2007
|
| Arno Teunisse wrote: | | By the way : my email address has changed : how do I change that ?? |
Click on 'Config'. |
, posted by on Sat Oct 6 14:05:01 2007
|
I ended with 125384 entries like the one above.
Everything works fine but ......... [U]tteerrrriibbllee[/U] [B]slow[/B]. CPU usage is constant at 99%.
I tried to split the one file produced by the import into 2 chunks but that did not improve the situation.
My question is : Is there a rule of thumb for the size of the "database" in which elog keeps it's performance, or better : is there a solution for this for elog.
|
Post appearing twice, posted by Dan Chitwood on Fri Sep 23 19:23:26 2005
|
| We are having trouble on our logbook with posts appearing twice. Both posts contain the same ID number, time, etc. This most often occurs when the e-log entry is being written for an extended period of time (ie. more than 30 minutes), but I don't know if that is the root cause of the problem. It may also be related to posts that are edited after an initial posting. Could this be due to an improper setting in our config file? |
|
Re: Post appearing twice, posted by Stefan Ritt on Wed Oct 5 13:22:08 2005
|
| Dan Chitwood wrote: | | We are having trouble on our logbook with posts appearing twice. Both posts contain the same ID number, time, etc. This most often occurs when the e-log entry is being written for an extended period of time (ie. more than 30 minutes), but I don't know if that is the root cause of the problem. It may also be related to posts that are edited after an initial posting. Could this be due to an improper setting in our config file? |
Besides the trivial case that people hit the submit button twice I can only imagine one possible cause: If you edit an existing entry, there is a button Resubmit as new entry at the bottom. If that button is checked, the old entry gets deleted and a new one gets submitted. If the delete of the old entry fails for some reason, you could maybe get two entries.
May I suggest following: Use a very simple config file (like the demo one from the distribution) and see if you can reproduce the problem. If not, add you config options one by one to the config file, and see at which option the problem starts. This way you might find the cause of it.
Your problem has not been reported by anybody else so far, so chances are high that it's related to a config setting. |
|
Re: Post appearing twice, posted by Alan Grant on Mon Jun 4 22:30:44 2007
|
| Stefan Ritt wrote: |
| Dan Chitwood wrote: | | We are having trouble on our logbook with posts appearing twice. Both posts contain the same ID number, time, etc. This most often occurs when the e-log entry is being written for an extended period of time (ie. more than 30 minutes), but I don't know if that is the root cause of the problem. It may also be related to posts that are edited after an initial posting. Could this be due to an improper setting in our config file? |
Besides the trivial case that people hit the submit button twice I can only imagine one possible cause: If you edit an existing entry, there is a button Resubmit as new entry at the bottom. If that button is checked, the old entry gets deleted and a new one gets submitted. If the delete of the old entry fails for some reason, you could maybe get two entries.
May I suggest following: Use a very simple config file (like the demo one from the distribution) and see if you can reproduce the problem. If not, add you config options one by one to the config file, and see at which option the problem starts. This way you might find the cause of it.
Your problem has not been reported by anybody else so far, so chances are high that it's related to a config setting. |
I was having a very similar problem. After clicking Submit, I was getting dialog box "Submit modified Elog entry?" (with Submit or Cancel options) even though it was a new entry. Whenever I clicked Submit, it added two identical lines (except for ID), but when I clicked Cancel, it added only one entry. This happened in both v2.6.3 and v2.6.5. I eventually deduced it down to the Required Attributes line in the cfg file. I removed almost all other lines and then started removing each required attribute until the field was identified. For some reason it didn't like field name called "Date/Time Reproted" and when I removed it, it added fine, although that one field had to be unrequired when it really should have been req'd. I didn't see anything in the cfg instuctions regarding the use of "/" (unless I missed it) but I assumed it has something to do with that "/". It's interesting to note however that fields by same name under other tabs work fine. It may be bug related. |
|
Re: Post appearing twice, posted by Stefan Ritt on Fri Jun 8 10:44:14 2007
|
| Alan Grant wrote: | | I was having a very similar problem. After clicking Submit, I was getting dialog box "Submit modified Elog entry?" (with Submit or Cancel options) even though it was a new entry. Whenever I clicked Submit, it added two identical lines (except for ID), but when I clicked Cancel, it added only one entry. This happened in both v2.6.3 and v2.6.5. |
Can you try to reproduce your problem with a minimal configuration file and send it to me? |
|
Re: Post appearing twice, posted by deletoille on Tue Jun 12 11:07:39 2007
|
| Stefan Ritt wrote: |
| Alan Grant wrote: | | I was having a very similar problem. After clicking Submit, I was getting dialog box "Submit modified Elog entry?" (with Submit or Cancel options) even though it was a new entry. Whenever I clicked Submit, it added two identical lines (except for ID), but when I clicked Cancel, it added only one entry. This happened in both v2.6.3 and v2.6.5. |
Can you try to reproduce your problem with a minimal configuration file and send it to me? |
I had the same problem but by adding the "Use lock = 0" option to the configuration, confirmation disappear |
|
Re: Post appearing twice, posted by Stefan Ritt on Tue Jun 12 17:13:28 2007
|
I finally found and fixed the problem with the help of Alan Grant. It happens when three things are used together:
- Locking (via use lock = 1)
- Attributes containing '/' characters
- Required attributes are used with attributes containing '/'
The '/' in the attribute crashes actually the JavaScript code for checking the required attributes and thus you have two submissions.
The bug is fixed in SVN revision 1866 and will be contained in the next release. |
|
Re: Post appearing twice, posted by Bertram Metz on Thu Sep 27 15:18:10 2007
|
I've observed the same behavior with attributes containing a dash. Would it be possible to allow '-' in attributes?
Bertram |
|
Re: Post appearing twice, posted by Stefan Ritt on Fri Sep 28 17:52:37 2007
|
| Bertram Metz wrote: | | I've observed the same behavior with attributes containing a dash. Would it be possible to allow '-' in attributes? |
Yes. Fixed in Revision 1930. |
Too many logbooks during user registration, posted by Steve Jones on Mon Aug 6 17:43:52 2007
|
Stefan, we require registration with elog. We have quite a number of logbooks and when someone requests a login account AND elects to register with all of the logbooks, the resulting URL is apparently too long for browsers to handle when the admins click on the link embedded in the email notification. For example, FireFox (latest ver) appears to truncate the URL *after* submission (the correct URL is there before submission).
My question: Is it possible to limit - or remove - the checkboxes that the user can select during registration? I realize that this is a browser issue but I doubt I can persuade those guys to fix FireFox.
Thanks. |
|
Re: Too many logbooks during user registration, posted by Stefan Ritt on Tue Aug 7 18:39:37 2007
|
| Steve Jones wrote: | Stefan, we require registration with elog. We have quite a number of logbooks and when someone requests a login account AND elects to register with all of the logbooks, the resulting URL is apparently too long for browsers to handle when the admins click on the link embedded in the email notification. For example, FireFox (latest ver) appears to truncate the URL *after* submission (the correct URL is there before submission).
My question: Is it possible to limit - or remove - the checkboxes that the user can select during registration? I realize that this is a browser issue but I doubt I can persuade those guys to fix FireFox.
Thanks. |
I changed the current SVN version (#1909) to show only the list of logbooks if there are ten or less logbooks, in order not to make the URL too long. On the activation by the administrator, the list of subscribed logbooks appears as previously, but all are unchecked. So it's the task of the administrator to enable subscriptions or not. |
|
Re: Too many logbooks during user registration, posted by Steve Jones on Tue Sep 11 15:30:11 2007
|
| Stefan Ritt wrote: |
| Steve Jones wrote: | Stefan, we require registration with elog. We have quite a number of logbooks and when someone requests a login account AND elects to register with all of the logbooks, the resulting URL is apparently too long for browsers to handle when the admins click on the link embedded in the email notification. For example, FireFox (latest ver) appears to truncate the URL *after* submission (the correct URL is there before submission).
My question: Is it possible to limit - or remove - the checkboxes that the user can select during registration? I realize that this is a browser issue but I doubt I can persuade those guys to fix FireFox.
Thanks. |
I changed the current SVN version (#1909) to show only the list of logbooks if there are ten or less logbooks, in order not to make the URL too long. On the activation by the administrator, the list of subscribed logbooks appears as previously, but all are unchecked. So it's the task of the administrator to enable subscriptions or not. |
| Quote: | So the list is shown to the one requesting the registration? Would it be possible to have an option that, when selected, simply did not list any logbooks? I can see a customer becoming confused if they did not see their logbook listed. Just turn off the selection completely. Otherwise, this will work but I fear will generate more questions as in "Why isn't logbook <blah> listed?"
Thanks!
|
|
|
Re: Too many logbooks during user registration, posted by Stefan Ritt on Tue Sep 11 21:25:11 2007
|
| Steve Jones wrote: | | So the list is shown to the one requesting the registration? Would it be possible to have an option that, when selected, simply did not list any logbooks? I can see a customer becoming confused if they did not see their logbook listed. Just turn off the selection completely. Otherwise, this will work but I fear will generate more questions as in "Why isn't logbook <blah> listed?" |
I agree, that's inconsistent. So I removed the logbook list completely (SVN revision 1914) and added a note on the user notification that they should click 'config' to subscribe to any logbook. |