It was now moved to the Draft space (which I did not even now existed so far): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:ELOG

If I understand it correctly I think it has to be submitted for review with the blue button on that page, just not sure if that should come from your side or someone else

Hey,

I want to submit an entry to elog remotley using the "elog" command. For example:

elog -h elog-server-adress -l EO -a Fill=111

But this does not generate a new entry. Instead the terminal jumps to an empty new line and the command does not respond to any further inputs anymore (CTRL+C to get out). I have to add a message:

elog -h elog-server-adress -l EO -a Fill=111 "test"

also using an empty string does not work:

elog -h elog-server-adress -l EO -a Fill=111 ""

I could add a whitespace as a work-around, but I'm not sure if this is a bug or a feature.

To put this in some context: I want to create entries for certain measurements automatically, where all relevant parameters are already attribute fields. In the usual case the actual message will be empty but might be used if the operator wants to add a note after the meausrement has been done.

Attributes = Time Start, Time End

Type Time Start = datetime
Type Time End = datetime

Time format = %H:%M:%S

Attributes = Time Start, Time End

Type Time Start = datetime
Type Time End = datetime

Time format Time Start = %H:%M:%S
Time format Time End = %H:%M:%S

There seems to be a small problem with the new "Date/Time format <attribute>" implementation. It works great for the detailed view of a single entry:

But fails to work on the list view (same entry, the Date column is formated as it should):

Relevant config part:

Time format Time Start = %H:%M:%S
Time format Time End = %H:%M:%S

If I upload an attachment the timestamp of the attachment is set to one hour in the future, as demonstrated with this test attachment being one hour in the future compared to the entry time

Hey,

I think this is a "problem" of the elog client, since it simply replaces the data. In most cases this is what you want, but since I wanted to have the option to append to the acutal message I built a function to first read-back the entry and add to the message instead of replacing it.

I just played around a bit and found that the attachments will be even disconnected, if you do not specify the -f parameter but just edit a different part of this entry.

A work-around for this is tricky. I tried to write to the "Attachment" attribute directly (-a "Attachment=Filename'), since then you coud read back the data first and manually add the filenames again. But this does not work.

Since the attachments are not actually removed, the only option I see is to modify the logbook file entry on the server by manually re-adding the filenames to the "Attachment: " line. But 

Hey,

I think this is a "problem" of the elog client, since it simply replaces the data. In most cases this is what you want, but since I wanted to have the option to append to the acutal message I built a function to first read-back the entry and add to the message instead of replacing it.

I just played around a bit and found that the attachments will be even disconnected, if you do not specify the -f parameter but just edit a different part of this entry.

A work-around for this is tricky. I tried to write to the "Attachment" attribute directly (-a "Attachment=Filename'), since then you coud read back the data first and manually add the filenames again. But this does not work.

Since the attachments are not actually removed, the only option I see is to modify the logbook file entry on the server by manually re-adding the filenames to the "Attachment: " line.