Demo Discussion
Forum Config Examples Contributions Vulnerabilities
  Discussion forum about ELOG, Page 206 of 796  Not logged in ELOG logo
 Find |  Login |  Help 
 Full | Summary | Threaded | Hide attachments  Show only new entries    6364 Entries 
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 205, 206, 207 ... 794, 795, 796   Next  
ID Date Icondown Author Author Email Category OS ELOG Version Subject
  2295   Tue Jul 17 13:28:29 2007 Reply Stefan Rittstefan.ritt@psi.chBug reportWindows6.5-1886Re: Show attributes
Grrrr. I already told you in elog:2287 to use Show Attributes Edit instead of Show Attributes. So put following into your config file:

show attributes edit = auteur,Icone, Type Equipement

Note the edit.
  2299   Tue Jul 24 08:30:02 2007 Reply Stefan Rittstefan.ritt@psi.chBug report 2.6.5-1872Re: CVS import + french = impossible

toumbi wrote:
Hi ,
I found a bug , when I want to import a cvs file and if i had set Language=french into global , I m not allowed.
Erreur : commande "CSV Import" non autorisée 
Utilisez le bouton "page précédente" de votre navigateur pour revenir en arrière

there is no problem if i use english.


This bug has been fixed in SVN revision 1892 and will be contained in the next release.
  2300   Fri Jul 27 16:00:07 2007 Reply An Thaithaithan@gmx.deInfoWindows2.6.5Re: WYSIWYG (What you see is what you get)
Hi Stefan,

I have just found an open source for WYSIWYG text editor named FCKeditor at http://www.fckeditor.net/. It looks great. The download Zip-file for this tool is only 1 MB.
Dokumentation is here: http://wiki.fckeditor.net/

or TinyMSC

http://tinymce.moxiecode.com/index.php


Have you an idea how to integrate them in elog?

Best regards,
An
  2301   Thu Aug 2 12:24:26 2007 Reply Stefan Rittstefan.ritt@psi.chInfoWindows2.6.5Re: WYSIWYG (What you see is what you get)

An Thai wrote:
I have just found an open source for WYSIWYG text editor named FCKeditor at http://www.fckeditor.net/. It looks great. The download Zip-file for this tool is only 1 MB.


I had a look and it just looks great. I will certainly add support for this editor, but I have to fix a few things, like inserting of images and the preview feature need modifications of FCKeditor. So stay tuned.
  2303   Fri Aug 3 16:00:42 2007 Reply Stefan Rittstefan.ritt@psi.chQuestionWindows2.6.5-1903Re: Boolean

Grant Jeffcote wrote:
I've noticed in the latest release when using the 'Find' page that any boolean expression (tick box) is now shown as '0,1 or unspecified'. Is this intentional? My colleagues are finding it hard to get their heads around what to choose and preferred the old 'Tick Box' option. Have there been changes to the configuration arguments used for Boolean that I've missed?


Well, maybe you didn't realize, but searching for boolean attributes never really worked. If you want to search for entries where a boolean is true (or 1), then you could check the tick box in the past. But if you wanted to search for all entries were an attribute was false (not true) you could not do it, because the system assumed you are not interested in an attribute if the tick box was not checked. With the new way, you could either specify 'unspecified' meaning you are not filtering on this attribute, or you can explicitly specify '0', to look for entries where the attribute is false. The best would be to have a three-state tick box, which can be on/off/grayed. Under Windows API this does exist, but not in HTML. So I had to go with the three radio buttons.

Now one could argue how to name boolean states. There are several options:

  • 0 / 1
  • no / yes
  • false / true
  • off /on

I have chosen the first one, but that's kind of arbitrary. If the community believes that another one is better, I'm willing to change.
  2304   Fri Aug 3 17:03:46 2007 Reply Grant Jeffcotegrant@jeffcote.orgQuestionWindows2.6.5-1903Re: Boolean

Stefan Ritt wrote:

Grant Jeffcote wrote:
I've noticed in the latest release when using the 'Find' page that any boolean expression (tick box) is now shown as '0,1 or unspecified'. Is this intentional? My colleagues are finding it hard to get their heads around what to choose and preferred the old 'Tick Box' option. Have there been changes to the configuration arguments used for Boolean that I've missed?


Well, maybe you didn't realize, but searching for boolean attributes never really worked. If you want to search for entries where a boolean is true (or 1), then you could check the tick box in the past. But if you wanted to search for all entries were an attribute was false (not true) you could not do it, because the system assumed you are not interested in an attribute if the tick box was not checked. With the new way, you could either specify 'unspecified' meaning you are not filtering on this attribute, or you can explicitly specify '0', to look for entries where the attribute is false. The best would be to have a three-state tick box, which can be on/off/grayed. Under Windows API this does exist, but not in HTML. So I had to go with the three radio buttons.

Now one could argue how to name boolean states. There are several options:

  • 0 / 1
  • no / yes
  • false / true
  • off /on

I have chosen the first one, but that's kind of arbitrary. If the community believes that another one is better, I'm willing to change.


Stefan
Thanks for the great explanation.
What are the chances of having a choice of the four options (as mentioned in your list) somehow so that when boolean-x is used (for example) in the configuration file the applicable option text is shown in the 'Find' page?

ie.

boolean-x = 0/1
boolean-y = no / yes
boolean-z = false / true

etc.

A long shot perhaps but don't know until you ask? Wink

Thanks
  2305   Fri Aug 3 17:05:56 2007 Reply Stefan Rittstefan.ritt@psi.chQuestionWindows2.6.5-1903Re: Boolean

Grant Jeffcote wrote:
What are the chances of having a choice of the four options (as mentioned in your list) somehow so that when boolean-x is used (for example) in the configuration file the applicable option text is shown in the 'Find' page?


If several people will ask for it, I will put it in.
  2307   Tue Aug 7 18:39:37 2007 Reply Stefan Rittstefan.ritt@psi.chRequestAll2.6.2-1739Re: Too many logbooks during user registration

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.
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 205, 206, 207 ... 794, 795, 796   Next  
ELOG V3.1.5-2eba886