Demo Discussion
Forum Config Examples Contributions Vulnerabilities
  Discussion forum about ELOG, Page 308 of 808  Not logged in ELOG logo
ID Date Icon Author Author Email Category OS ELOG Version Subjectdown
  67704   Tue Sep 16 18:05:41 2014 Reply Chris Jenningscjennings@cosma.comBug reportWindows V2.9.2-24Re: Sort by date prior to 2002

Chris Jennings wrote:

I have an attribute formatted as a date (but not labeled as date) and is sorted as second priority. The sort works fine until I enter a date older than Jan 1st 2002. When I do this it is sorted as the latest. Is this a bug or simply not designed to use dates this old?

Thanks in advance,

Chris

 Sorry, my mistake. The cutoff date is anything before September 9th 2001 does not sort.

  67705   Wed Sep 17 17:45:18 2014 Idea Andreas Luedekeandreas.luedeke@psi.chInfoAll V2.9.2-24Re: Sort by date prior to 2002

Chris Jennings wrote:

Chris Jennings wrote:

I have an attribute formatted as a date (but not labeled as date) and is sorted as second priority. The sort works fine until I enter a date older than Jan 1st 2002. When I do this it is sorted as the latest. Is this a bug or simply not designed to use dates this old?

Thanks in advance,

Chris

 Sorry, my mistake. The cutoff date is anything before September 9th 2001 does not sort.

I think I remember that this has been discussed earlier: it is a little bug in elogd.
You can see where it comes from if you type in the little command 'date -d "9-Sep-2001 3:46:40" +%s'
Converted to "seconds of the epoche" (seconds since 1970-01-01 00:00:00 UTC) the date "9-Sep-2001 3:46:40" has one digit more than "9-Sep-2001 3:46:39".
Since elog makes a string comparison, suddenly 1'000'000'000 is less than 999'999'999; therefore the wrong sorting.

Workaround: you can modify your old entries and add a leading zero to all entries where your specific date field starts with a '9'.

Stefan: you should fix it at least well before 20-Nov-2286 18:46:40, when the same bug strikes again!
  67706   Mon Sep 22 14:39:10 2014 Reply Stefan Rittstefan.ritt@psi.chInfoAll V2.9.2-24Re: Sort by date prior to 2002

Andreas Luedeke wrote:

Chris Jennings wrote:

Chris Jennings wrote:

I have an attribute formatted as a date (but not labeled as date) and is sorted as second priority. The sort works fine until I enter a date older than Jan 1st 2002. When I do this it is sorted as the latest. Is this a bug or simply not designed to use dates this old?

Thanks in advance,

Chris

 Sorry, my mistake. The cutoff date is anything before September 9th 2001 does not sort.

I think I remember that this has been discussed earlier: it is a little bug in elogd.
You can see where it comes from if you type in the little command 'date -d "9-Sep-2001 3:46:40" +%s'
Converted to "seconds of the epoche" (seconds since 1970-01-01 00:00:00 UTC) the date "9-Sep-2001 3:46:40" has one digit more than "9-Sep-2001 3:46:39".
Since elog makes a string comparison, suddenly 1'000'000'000 is less than 999'999'999; therefore the wrong sorting.

Workaround: you can modify your old entries and add a leading zero to all entries where your specific date field starts with a '9'.

Stefan: you should fix it at least well before 20-Nov-2286 18:46:40, when the same bug strikes again!

Ok, well before 2286 approaches I fixed that bug and committed it to the GIT repository (master branch).

/Stefan 

  66085   Thu Nov 27 08:21:40 2008 Reply mike ciancimike2.cianci@comcast.netQuestion  Re: Sort Attributes

mike cianci wrote:

I am tring to sort  the attribute, subject, but it sorts with Z on top and A on the bottom. Is there anyway to reverse sort?

 Sorry, to bother you. Solved my own problem   " Reverse sort = 0"

  67451   Thu Feb 21 20:32:54 2013 Agree Garret Delarondegarret.delaronde@gmail.comQuestionWindows2.9Re: Sort Attribute = 0

Garret Delaronde wrote:

Hello All,

The subject is roughly what i'm asking about so here are the details. I have combed through the forums for an answer and didn't come up with anything regarding what i need.

Issue:

Below is what the logbook is setup as. However once there are more than 10 entries on the page, when a user views the logbook, elog automatically puts them to the higher value page # (ie entry number 11 is on page 2).

As I am sorting the entries by status and by Dist or Beat to organize entries for quicker viewing and access, I would prefer that elog always shows on page 1 when a user views the log book. The statuses are setup for sorting properly but when reverse sort is turned on, status "3-Closed" appears at the top instead of status "1-Open" to appear at the top, Status "2-Sent to Next Shift" next, then "3-Closed" after that.

Is there a to just view page 1 without doing the reverse sort?

 

Theme = default
Page Title = ELOG - $logbook
Entries per page = 10
Attributes = Entered By, Call Type, Date/Time Reported, Customer Name, Customer Phone Number, Location, Dist or Beat, Description, Badge, Updated By, Action Taken, Report Time, Status
List Display = Entered By, Call Type, Date/Time Reported, Customer Name, Location, Dist or Beat, Description, Badge, Updated By, Status
Locked Attributes = Entered By, Updated By
Preset Entered By = $long_name
Preset on edit Updated By = $long_name
Options Status = 1-Open, 2-Sent to Next Shift, 3-Closed
Preset Status = 1-Open
Cell Style Status 1-Open = background-color:red
Cell Style Status 2-Sent to Next Shift = background-color:yellow
Cell Style Status 3-Closed = background-color:green
Type Date/Time Reported = Datetime
Type Customer Phone Number = numeric
Type Report Time = Datetime
Sort Attributes = Status, Dist or Beat
Reverse sort = 0
Use Lock = 0
Summary lines = 0
Self Register = 0

Thanks in advance.

 

G

 

 Well it would appear i answered my own problem.

Start page = page1

 

  1442   Mon Oct 10 14:09:49 2005 Reply Stefan Rittstefan.ritt@psi.chRequestAll2.6.0beta5Re: Some spell mistakes

Exaos Lee wrote:
I find some new strings from the warnings like this:

Quote:
Language error: string "HelpELCode" not found for language "chinese"


I have added these new string to the languages files in Chinese. I think:
"Enter name of hypelink" should be "Enter name of hyperlink".


Ok, fixed in the current subversion repository. Better write such things by personal mail to me, since it might not interest the elog community very much.
  1445   Mon Oct 10 19:26:35 2005 Reply Exaos LeeExaos.Lee@gmail.comRequestAll2.6.0beta5Re: Some spell mistakes

Quote:
Ok, fixed in the current subversion repository. Better write such things by personal mail to me, since it might not interest the elog community very much.

Sorry. Wink I will mail you first next time.
  69537   Sat Jul 2 14:39:41 2022 Reply Andreas Luedekeandreas.luedeke@psi.chQuestionWindows3.1.2Re: Slow performance

We have 68 logbooks and currently 60 GB data total. We run it as well on a VM, in our case with 8GB RAM.
The speed of ELOG is mostly given by the filesystem: when we had AFS it was very slow. With NFS it was better. But we now use a local disk on the VM: that is much better.
If you want to have the best performance (upload of large files can still slow down all users) then I would recomment local SSD for the file system of elogd.

You might talk to your system administrator: they can likely provide a local SSD on the VM server host.

Alan Grant wrote:

We're up to 30 logbooks, 3.2GB data total and Elog damen has now become slow. Performance stats show 100%CPU on startup then reduces. Searches and general UI activity is slow. It runs on a VM with 4GB memory allocated. Up to 15 concurrent users.

Trimming and archiving some data files may help but I gather overall this is underpowered hardware in this instance so what is recommended system requirements for a config like this?

 

ELOG V3.1.5-3fb85fa6