Demo Discussion
Forum Config Examples Contributions Vulnerabilities
  Discussion forum about ELOG, Page 250 of 808  Not logged in ELOG logo
ID Date Icon Authordown Author Email Category OS ELOG Version Subject
  65680   Tue Dec 18 09:41:16 2007 Reply Stefan Rittstefan.ritt@psi.chQuestionMac OSX2.6.1Re: Moving a logbook from one installation to another

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 ...

 

 

  65683   Wed Jan 9 10:59:31 2008 Reply Stefan Rittstefan.ritt@psi.chQuestionWindows2.7.0-1964Re: Summary View Umlauts

Kenneth Andersson wrote:

Hi!

When will the fix be in latest version so umlauts is showed in the correct way? (I installed the latest version for Windows yesterday and it is 2.7.0-1964)

 

//Kenneth Andersson

I made an elog270-3.exe for you which contains the actual reviaion 1985.

  65684   Wed Jan 9 11:00:21 2008 Reply Stefan Rittstefan.ritt@psi.chQuestionAll2.7.0-1964Re: Completed Swedish translation

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.

  65687   Wed Jan 9 15:30:15 2008 Reply Stefan Rittstefan.ritt@psi.chQuestionWindows2.7.0-1964Re: Summary View Umlauts

Stefan Ritt wrote:

Kenneth Andersson wrote:

Hi!

When will the fix be in latest version so umlauts is showed in the correct way? (I installed the latest version for Windows yesterday and it is 2.7.0-1964)

 

//Kenneth Andersson

I made an elog270-3.exe for you which contains the actual reviaion 1985.

This is just a test reply

  65689   Thu Jan 10 08:27:53 2008 Reply Stefan Rittstefan.ritt@psi.chQuestionWindows2.7.0-1985Re: Unknown toolbar item 'ShowBlocks'

Uwe wrote:

Hello,

I just made an update from version V2.7.0-1964 to V2.7.0-1985 and I am receiving now the error message Unknown toolbar item 'ShowBlocks' whenever creating or editing an entry.  When clicking onto Ok, everything seems to work fine. Can you help please? Error message occurs in Internet Explorer and also in Firefox.

Addition: The Show Blocks Symbol is missing

Thanks!

Uwe

There was an update of the FCKeditor which I forgot to include in the distribution. Please re-download elog270-3.exe and install it again. The new version of the editor will be included there and fix your problem.

  65691   Thu Jan 10 15:30:35 2008 Reply Stefan Rittstefan.ritt@psi.chBug reportLinux2.7.0-1954Re: "Default encoding" default is not as documented

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 Wink

The reason for this is to give beginners the FCKeditor by default instead of the ELCode encoding.
  65693   Thu Jan 10 16:31:22 2008 Reply Stefan Rittstefan.ritt@psi.chQuestionWindows2.7.0-1985Re: Unknown toolbar item 'ShowBlocks'

Uwe wrote:

Stefan Ritt wrote:

Uwe wrote:

Hello,

I just made an update from version V2.7.0-1964 to V2.7.0-1985 and I am receiving now the error message Unknown toolbar item 'ShowBlocks' whenever creating or editing an entry.  When clicking onto Ok, everything seems to work fine. Can you help please? Error message occurs in Internet Explorer and also in Firefox.

The intermediate elog version 2.7.0-3 had a bug which truncated some entries (just like the one where I reply to). This has been fixed in release 2.7.0-4. So please everybody who uses 2.7.0-3 do an update.

  65695   Fri Jan 11 08:08:51 2008 Reply Stefan Rittstefan.ritt@psi.chQuestionLinux2.7.0-1954Re: Configuration of HTML editor

Kristján Jónsson wrote:

Do I have to do any extra configuration in elog to enable the FCKeditor.

What I get with V2.7.0-1954 is that the main message entry field looks and behaves identically whether I set the encoding to HTML or plain (except the width and height of the field changes).

ELCode works as expected.  Message files saved with the encoding set to HTML have a line "Encoding: HTML", but no HTML markup.  Those saved with encoding set to plain have the line "Encoding: plain", but are otherwise identical.

I have the scripts directory as set up by "make install" containing the elcode.js file and the fckeditor subdirectory.  All are world readable.

Any hints about what could be the problem?

Version 1954 is a bit old. Please update to the current SVN version and try again. There must be a file elog/scripts/fckeditor/fckeditor.js which was missing at some time.

 

ELOG V3.1.5-3fb85fa6