Demo Discussion
Forum Config Examples Contributions Vulnerabilities
  Discussion forum about ELOG, Page 302 of 808  Not logged in ELOG logo
 Find |  Login |  Help 
 Full | Summary | Threaded | Hide attachments  Show only new entries    6460 Entries 
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 301, 302, 303 ... 806, 807, 808   Next  
ID Date Icon Author Author Email Category OS ELOG Version Subjectdown
  67844   Tue Mar 31 11:36:25 2015 Reply Andreas Luedekeandreas.luedeke@psi.chQuestionWindowsELOG V2.9.Re: Strange browser behaviour with chrome?

Stefan Ritt wrote:
The (correct) display tells me that the colours are user-defined, probably by the configuration option

Style <attribute> <value> = <style>

which selects different styles for different rows. Now I do not know why your browser should change behaviour all over sudden, but I would double check the configuration. Like removing all style additions in the config file, then try again, then add one by one. There could also be a class defined with the "style" option which has not been added to the default style file themes directory of the elog installation.

Stefan


Just my two cent:
the content of a particular entry can change the rendering. If you have an HTML end tag like </table> or </font> in your entry, then the display after that entry may be spoiled.
You could try to select the very same entries in both browsers, to see if it does depend on the specific entry content.
If the problem persists, then I would suggest that you post the following:
- a minimal configuration for a logbook that reproduces the problem; and
- the actual entries, exported in XML or RAW format; and
- screenshots on how it displays with IE (add version number) and with Chrome (add version number).

Cheers
Andreas
  67845   Tue Mar 31 11:44:27 2015 Reply Stefan Rittstefan.ritt@psi.chQuestionWindowsELOG V2.9.Re: Strange browser behaviour with chrome?

Andreas Luedeke wrote:
the content of a particular entry can change the rendering. If you have an HTML end tag like </table> or </font> in your entry, then the display after that entry may be spoiled.


Actually not. If you have HTML statements in entries, they will be rendered using escape characters (like </table> -> &lt;/table&gt;). This is necessary to avoid cross-side-script vulnerabilities (XSS). If this is not working in some case, let me know and I have to fix it. The only exception is if you explicitly allow this via Allow HTML = 1
  67846   Wed Apr 1 10:54:27 2015 Reply Andreas Luedekeandreas.luedeke@psi.chQuestionWindowsELOG V2.9.Re: Strange browser behaviour with chrome?

Stefan Ritt wrote:

Andreas Luedeke wrote:
the content of a particular entry can change the rendering. If you have an HTML end tag like </table> or </font> in your entry, then the display after that entry may be spoiled.


Actually not. If you have HTML statements in entries, they will be rendered using escape characters (like </table> -> &lt;/table&gt;). This is necessary to avoid cross-side-script vulnerabilities (XSS). If this is not working in some case, let me know and I have to fix it. The only exception is if you explicitly allow this via Allow HTML = 1


If the content has been added with the "elog" command as HTML then it can contain mismatching HTML tags, can't it?
I don't see how this could be avoided by ELOG, unless you want to do a full HTML syntax check of all new and modified entries.
  67847   Wed Apr 1 11:01:14 2015 Reply Tim Schelfhouttim.schelfhout@fixbrussel.beQuestionWindowsELOG V2.9.Re: Strange browser behaviour with chrome?
Thank you all of you for your notes ...
Anyway I have no time at the present to debug this ... at the level of configuration file.
I discovered however that the Incognito Mode of Chrome does NOT seem to have this problem??
Chrome version is 41.0.2272.101

Don't know why ??? ... tried disabling all of the added extensions in chrome but to no avail.
Don't know what else can be different in both modes.


Andreas Luedeke wrote:

Stefan Ritt wrote:
The (correct) display tells me that the colours are user-defined, probably by the configuration option

Style <attribute> <value> = <style>

which selects different styles for different rows. Now I do not know why your browser should change behaviour all over sudden, but I would double check the configuration. Like removing all style additions in the config file, then try again, then add one by one. There could also be a class defined with the "style" option which has not been added to the default style file themes directory of the elog installation.

Stefan


Just my two cent:
the content of a particular entry can change the rendering. If you have an HTML end tag like </table> or </font> in your entry, then the display after that entry may be spoiled.
You could try to select the very same entries in both browsers, to see if it does depend on the specific entry content.
If the problem persists, then I would suggest that you post the following:
- a minimal configuration for a logbook that reproduces the problem; and
- the actual entries, exported in XML or RAW format; and
- screenshots on how it displays with IE (add version number) and with Chrome (add version number).

Cheers
Andreas
  67848   Wed Apr 1 11:41:31 2015 Reply Stefan Rittstefan.ritt@psi.chQuestionWindowsELOG V2.9.Re: Strange browser behaviour with chrome?

Andreas Luedeke wrote:
If the content has been added with the "elog" command as HTML then it can contain mismatching HTML tags, can't it?
I don't see how this could be avoided by ELOG, unless you want to do a full HTML syntax check of all new and modified entries.


It works also with entries submitted by the "elog" command. The reason is that for the OUTPUT, all "<" characters are transformed into &gt;, which "inactivates" any HTML code, no matter where it came from.
  67852   Wed Apr 1 18:31:28 2015 Reply Andreas Luedekeandreas.luedeke@psi.chQuestionWindowsELOG V2.9.Re: Strange browser behaviour with chrome?

Stefan Ritt wrote:

Andreas Luedeke wrote:
If the content has been added with the "elog" command as HTML then it can contain mismatching HTML tags, can't it?
I don't see how this could be avoided by ELOG, unless you want to do a full HTML syntax check of all new and modified entries.


It works also with entries submitted by the "elog" command. The reason is that for the OUTPUT, all "<" characters are transformed into &gt;, which "inactivates" any HTML code, no matter where it came from.


Now I'm confused: if I create an entry with "elog -n 2 ...", then I put HTML code into elog and it is displayed as HTML. This HTML code does NOT convert a "<" into "&lt;", otherwise you could not display any HTML.
But of course this code can be wrongly formatted, for example it can contain a </table> tag without a <table> tag before it. This will definitely spoil the display in ELOG, and that was what I was refering to.
I agree that html tags in plain text entries will not have this problem.
  67853   Wed Apr 1 18:39:14 2015 Reply Andreas Luedekeandreas.luedeke@psi.chQuestionWindowsELOG V2.9.Re: Strange browser behaviour with chrome?

Proof of principle ;-)

  67732   Wed Dec 17 14:40:19 2014 Reply Stefan Rittstefan.ritt@psi.chBug reportLinux2.8.1Re: Strange Behavior in "Find" Function
Eric Quintero wrote:

Hi all,

We've been happily using ELOG for years, but ran into an odd problem when replacing the old Solaris server that ran the ELOG with a newer box running Ubuntu. 

Basically, when I try to search the log, the URL seems to be malformed. I.e. the form produces the query string:

?mode=summvry&reverse=0&reverse=1&npp=35&m&y&Authorthor=ericq

Instead of a functional one like:

?mode=summary&reverse=1&npp=35&Author=ericq

We're running v2.8.1, since we like using the global write password mode; our log is viewable here: http://nodus.ligo.caltech.edu:8080 Any ideas what could've gone wrong? Installation was pretty straightforward, the code compiled happily on the ubuntu machine. 

Incidentally, I notice this logbook is running V3, using CKeditor. Any hints when these might be available for public use?

Thanks!

Old versions are not supported any more. I only can fix bugs in the current version. Probably the bug you report is already gone (just give it a try). If you need the global write password mode, you can enable guest read access to your logbook and define a single use with the write password, that's then almost equivalent.

/Stefan

 

 

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 301, 302, 303 ... 806, 807, 808   Next  
ELOG V3.1.5-3fb85fa6