Demo Discussion
Forum Config Examples Contributions Vulnerabilities
  Discussion forum about ELOG, Page 249 of 807  Not logged in ELOG logo
 Find |  Login |  Help 
 Full | Summary | Threaded | Show attachments  Show only new entries    6450 Entries 
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 248, 249, 250 ... 805, 806, 807   Next  
ID Date Icondown Author Author Email Category OS ELOG Version Subject
  66097   Fri Dec 5 16:14:19 2008 Reply Steve WilliamsonStephenWilliamson@Barnsley.gov.ukBug reportLinux2.7.5Re: Auto-increment attributes

Steve Williamson wrote:

We have an auto-incrementing reference attribute defined as:

# RFC

Format RFC = 0,narrowattribname,narrowattribvalue,60,60
Preset RFC = RFC-######
Preset On Duplicate RFC = RFC-######
Tooltip RFC = A unique reference will be generated for this Request For Change

We also have a "Created by/when" attribute.  Looking at the values this seems to be set when the user clicks "New" whereas the time stamp that appears on the line after the  $@MID@$ seems to be set when the user clicks "Submit".

# Created

Format Created = 0,attribname,attribvalue,70,100
Preset Created = $long_name ($short_name) on $date
Preset On Duplicate Created = $long_name ($short_name) on $date

Every once in a while the incrementing stops working and the number 'sticks' or misses some out.  It looks as if it might be because multiple people are adding entries concurrently.  Could the occasion where there is a gap in the sequence (171-174) be where people abandoned changes (clicked on "Back") after having numbers allocated?  Here is a list showing the discrepancies.

Date        Item     Time Stamp (from the line after $@MID@$)  "Created" attribute time stamp

22/09/08    124      16:15:10                                   11:58

22/09/08    125      16:33:54                                   16:24

 

22/09/08    125      16:35:37                                   16:33              Should be 126

...

10/10/08    146      10:39:09                                   10:30                    Correct

10/10/08    146      10:46:57                                   10:35              Should be 147

10/10/08    147      13:04:03                                   13:02              Should be 148

10/10/08    148      15:11:38                                   15:00              Should be 149

...

17/11/08    171      10:21                                      10:17              Correct

17/11/08    174      14:30                                      13:47              Should be 172

17/11/08    175      16:14                                      16:04              Should be 173

17/11/08    176      16:49                                      16:38              Should be 174

...

25/11/08    187      15:49:58                                   15:47              Correct

25/11/08    187      15:52:39                                   15:48              Should be 188

25/11/08    188      16:49:56                                   16:44              Should be 189

25/11/08    188      16:52:40                                   16:40              Should be 190

25/11/08    188      16:55:17                                   16:43              Should be 191

Let me know if you need any more information.

regards

Steve

 Hi

This is to let you know that the increment problem has just happened again.

Item 206 has timestamp (from the line after $@MID@$) of 11:59:45 and "created" attribute timestamp of 11:29

overlapping with this, a second item 206 has timestamp of 12:04:02 and "created" attribute of 11:53

So, both users were entering information between 11:53 and 11:59:45 and both picked up the same increment number.

There's no easy solution tho, is there? If you pick up the increment number at the start so it can be displayed on screen and ensure uniqueness then, if a user cancels a new entry you end up with "holes" in the sequence.  If you pick it up at the end then you can't display it until the user presses submit.

regards

Steve

  66099   Mon Dec 8 08:59:56 2008 Reply Stefan Rittstefan.ritt@psi.chQuestionOther2.7.5-2143Re: Change background color

 

mike cianci wrote:

I copied the following line from the ELOG documentation file to my config file (with the appropriate changes to the attribute and value fields) and nothing happens. Am I missing something?

Style importance severe = background-color:red

Thanks for all your help.

 

 Just the "usual candidates":

  • Any typo?
  • Edited the wrong file?
  • Must send a HUP signal to elogd if running under linux
  • Note that the style changes only in the list display

I just tried with a minimal configuration file:

 

[demo]
Attributes = Author, Importance, Subject
Options Importance = normal, severe
Style Importance severe = background-color:red

 

and it just worked fine:

Capture.png

  66100   Mon Dec 8 10:09:14 2008 Reply Stefan Rittstefan.ritt@psi.chBug reportLinux2.7.5Re: Auto-increment attributes

I finally found some time to address this problem. It is indeed related to the fact that the new number gets assigned when you click on 'New'. So if two people edit the new entries at the same time, they get assigned the same number. To fix this problem, I made the tag generation work with the 'Subst' command, which is evaluated at the entry submission, and not when you click on 'New'. So to make this work, you need to upgrade to SVN revision 2152 and then put into your configuration file: 

Attributes = Author, RFC, Subject
Preset RFC = <will be assigned when you submit>
Preset on duplicate RFC = <will be assigned when you submit>
Locked attributes = RFC  Subst RFC = RFC-######

I also changed the documentation accordingly.

  66101   Mon Dec 8 13:13:13 2008 Reply Steve WilliamsonStephenWilliamson@Barnsley.gov.ukBug reportLinux2.7.5Re: Auto-increment attributes

Stefan Ritt wrote:

I finally found some time to address this problem. It is indeed related to the fact that the new number gets assigned when you click on 'New'. So if two people edit the new entries at the same time, they get assigned the same number. To fix this problem, I made the tag generation work with the 'Subst' command, which is evaluated at the entry submission, and not when you click on 'New'. So to make this work, you need to upgrade to SVN revision 2152 and then put into your configuration file: 

Attributes = Author, RFC, Subject
Preset RFC = <will be assigned when you submit>
Preset on duplicate RFC = <will be assigned when you submit>
Locked attributes = RFC  Subst RFC = RFC-######

I also changed the documentation accordingly.

 Stefan

Thanks for fix - I've just tested it and it works beautifully.

regards

Steve

 

  66102   Tue Dec 9 00:22:41 2008 Reply Dennis Seitzdseitz@berkeley.eduQuestionAll2.7.5Re: Re: $entry time not readable by Subst, else not datetime type? - possible Preset bug?

Dennis Seitz wrote:

Stefan Ritt wrote:

Dennis Seitz wrote:
FYI, I think there's a little bug in the datetime vs $date implementation.

Here's a section of my config file implementing a "Last Edit" field:

Type Last Edit = datetime
Preset Last Edit =$date
Locked Attributes = Last Edit
Subst on edit Last Edit = $date
Start page = ?rsort=Last Edit

I expected that "Preset Last Edit =$date" would set Last Edit to the current date when I create a new entry. In fact that leaves the field empty, or at least not in datetime format.

I found that using this instead works:
Preset Last Edit =$entry time

which seems contradictory since
Subst on edit Last Edit = $date
works fine.


Do you have an old version of elog? Using the current version with a configuration file:
Attributes = Author, Type, Last Edit
Type Last Edit = datetime
Preset Last Edit =$date
Locked Attributes = Last Edit
Start page = ?rsort=Last Edit

I get the correct behavior:



Yes, I'm using 2.7.3 - I'll try upgrading, sorry. I'll reply with the outcome.


Everything works fine with 2.7.5, thanks!
  66104   Tue Dec 9 08:04:00 2008 Reply Stefan Rittstefan.ritt@psi.chRequestAll2.7.5Re: Please add Subst on Duplicate

 

Dennis Seitz wrote:

 I would like to be able to substitute some attribute values when an entry is duplicated. I don't see Subst on Duplicate available in the cfg file syntax. Can you add that?

 

Subst on Duplicate does not make sense. Subst always works after you submit an entry, while Preset works before you enter the entry. When you Duplicate an entry, it looks like a new one, just with attributes and text from another entry. So when you submit that one, the system cannot distinguish if you entered a new one by yourself or if this is based on a copy of another entry. So what you probably need is Preset on duplicate.

  66105   Wed Dec 10 03:11:01 2008 Reply Dennis Seitzdseitz@berkeley.eduRequestAll2.7.5Re: Please add Subst on Duplicate

 

Stefan Ritt wrote:

 

Dennis Seitz wrote:

 I would like to be able to substitute some attribute values when an entry is duplicated. I don't see Subst on Duplicate available in the cfg file syntax. Can you add that?

 

Subst on Duplicate does not make sense. Subst always works after you submit an entry, while Preset works before you enter the entry. When you Duplicate an entry, it looks like a new one, just with attributes and text from another entry. So when you submit that one, the system cannot distinguish if you entered a new one by yourself or if this is based on a copy of another entry. So what you probably need is Preset on duplicate.

Thanks for explaining.

I thought Preset would work with Duplicate since Duplicate creates a new entry, but it didn't. Then I tried Subst because Duplicating an entry opens it in Edit mode, so you are in effect Duplicating, and then Editing the entry. It just didn't occur to me to look for Preset on Duplicate.

  66108   Fri Dec 12 07:45:14 2008 Reply Stefan Rittstefan.ritt@psi.chRequestWindows2.7.5-2140Re: Conflict between Select-Edit and attribute types

 

Richard Stamper wrote:

When doing a Select->Edit operation, if an attribute has a type of "numeric" and the records selected already have (some) values for that attribute, then the "- keep original values -" message that is inserted to indicate that the values should be preserved causes the type check to fail.

Would it be possible to modify the Javascript that carries out the type check to treat the "- keep original values -" message as an exception?

 

 Thanks for reporting this. It has been fixed in SVN revision 2155. The fix will be contained in the next release.

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 248, 249, 250 ... 805, 806, 807   Next  
ELOG V3.1.5-3fb85fa6