ID |
Date |
Icon |
Author |
Author Email |
Category |
OS |
ELOG Version |
Subject |
66513
|
Tue Aug 11 13:25:48 2009 |
| Stefan Ritt | stefan.ritt@psi.ch | Question | Windows | 2.6.5 | Re: Logbook Parser |
Steve Williamson wrote: |
excuse my butting in ... I've found the exports useful in the past - however, is is possible to run the export from a script in order to produce reports? Utilities like wget won't work as the export process doesn't return the data as html.
|
That's not true. wget does work. Try that one:
wget --no-check-certificate -O export.csv https://midas.psi.ch/elogs/linux+demo/?mode=CSV1
actaully wget doesn't care if the return is HTML or a GIF image or anything else, it just saves it into the output file. |
66512
|
Tue Aug 11 13:02:22 2009 |
| Steve Williamson | StephenWilliamson@Barnsley.gov.uk | Question | Windows | 2.6.5 | Re: Logbook Parser |
Stefan Ritt wrote: |
Alan Grant wrote: |
We are exploring whether it's possible/feasible to import ELog logbooks into a another database for special purposes (plotting/statisical, etc). Target database is TBD (perhaps Access).
Does anyone have or know of a logbook parser program? From cut/pasting into, for example, Excel, it does appear that the data fields are already line-feed delimited so offhand it would seem possible to parse if one really wanted to pursue it.
Regards,
- Alan
|
You can export to CSV (comma-separated-values) if you go to "Find" and then click on "Export: CSV". These fiels you ran read right into Excel or other spreadsheet programs for further analysis.
|
excuse my butting in ... I've found the exports useful in the past - however, is is possible to run the export from a script in order to produce reports? Utilities like wget won't work as the export process doesn't return the data as html.
regards
Steve
|
66511
|
Tue Aug 11 10:07:08 2009 |
| David Pilgram | David.Pilgram@epost.org.uk | Comment | Linux | 2.7.7-2251 | Re: Comment on: Alphabetize Quick Option filter | Thanks Stefan! Works great.
> Ok, that makes sense, so I changed it to
>
> Sort Attribute Options Status = 1
>
> as you suggested.
>
> > (For some reason I could not add this in Dennis's thread.)
> >
> > I like this new feature, BUT
> >
> > I happen to have two Options: Options System, and Options Status.
> >
> > System are a very few items, whereas Status has a long list, which, like Dennis's example, can be added to.
> > Keeping the latter in alpha order is great, but it's a shame that the cost is that Options System are also
> > sorted alphabetically, whereas it has a natural order which it would be preferable to keep - for example (and
> > this is made up)
> >
> > Options System: 3.1, NT, 2000, XP, Vista
> >
> > where the natural order here is chronological.
> >
> > Perhaps the configuration file option could be more specific, for example
> >
> > Sort attribute Options Status = 1
> >
> > which would then NOT sort Options System. If both are needed to be sorted, both should be specified, or back to
> > the original syntax which defaults to sort *all* Options. |
66510
|
Tue Aug 11 08:38:56 2009 |
| Stefan Ritt | stefan.ritt@psi.ch | Comment | Linux | 2.7.7-2251 | Re: Comment on: Alphabetize Quick Option filter | Ok, that makes sense, so I changed it to
Sort Attribute Options Status = 1
as you suggested.
> (For some reason I could not add this in Dennis's thread.)
>
> I like this new feature, BUT
>
> I happen to have two Options: Options System, and Options Status.
>
> System are a very few items, whereas Status has a long list, which, like Dennis's example, can be added to.
> Keeping the latter in alpha order is great, but it's a shame that the cost is that Options System are also
> sorted alphabetically, whereas it has a natural order which it would be preferable to keep - for example (and
> this is made up)
>
> Options System: 3.1, NT, 2000, XP, Vista
>
> where the natural order here is chronological.
>
> Perhaps the configuration file option could be more specific, for example
>
> Sort attribute Options Status = 1
>
> which would then NOT sort Options System. If both are needed to be sorted, both should be specified, or back to
> the original syntax which defaults to sort *all* Options. |
66509
|
Tue Aug 11 08:33:32 2009 |
| Stefan Ritt | stefan.ritt@psi.ch | Request | Windows | 2.6.5 | Re: List Option |
Alan Grant wrote: |
Currently this is defined as a maximum of 100 literals in the cfg file. I would like to see the option to reference an external text file as input for this.
|
I will put this on the wish list.
Alan Grant wrote: |
As a side question, I would also like to increase the max to a greater value, for example, even 5000. I assume I can change the source (I recall var was something like "List_Option_Max") and see if that would still work, but would you know offhand if that would cause a problem anywhere else?
|
I limited this to 100 entries because it will be hard to handle it. Imagine a drop-down list box with 5000 entries. It would fill your complete screen and you still won't see all 5000 entries. In that case it might be better to use a free text field and enter the attribute value as free text.
You can increase MAX_N_LIST in elogd.c, but at some point you will get a stack overflow and elogd will just crash.
- Stefan
|
66508
|
Tue Aug 11 08:29:23 2009 |
| Stefan Ritt | stefan.ritt@psi.ch | Question | Windows | 2.6.5 | Re: Logbook Parser |
Alan Grant wrote: |
We are exploring whether it's possible/feasible to import ELog logbooks into a another database for special purposes (plotting/statisical, etc). Target database is TBD (perhaps Access).
Does anyone have or know of a logbook parser program? From cut/pasting into, for example, Excel, it does appear that the data fields are already line-feed delimited so offhand it would seem possible to parse if one really wanted to pursue it.
Regards,
- Alan
|
You can export to CSV (comma-separated-values) if you go to "Find" and then click on "Export: CSV". These fiels you ran read right into Excel or other spreadsheet programs for further analysis. |
66507
|
Tue Aug 11 08:10:21 2009 |
| Alan Grant | netman311@mts.net | Request | Windows | 2.6.5 | List Option | Hello Stefan.
Currently this is defined as a maximum of 100 literals in the cfg file. I would like to see the option to reference an external text file as input for this.
As a side question, I would also like to increase the max to a greater value, for example, even 5000. I assume I can change the source (I recall var was something like "List_Option_Max") and see if that would still work, but would you know offhand if that would cause a problem anywhere else?
Regards,
Alan
(PS: Just getting started with ELog. Please excuse if these questions sound newbie. I also searched the Forum first but haven't found any answers to them yet.) |
66506
|
Tue Aug 11 00:20:11 2009 |
| Alan Grant | netman311@mts.net | Question | Windows | 2.6.5 | Logbook Parser | We are exploring whether it's possible/feasible to import ELog logbooks into a another database for special purposes (plotting/statisical, etc). Target database is TBD (perhaps Access).
Does anyone have or know of a logbook parser program? From cut/pasting into, for example, Excel, it does appear that the data fields are already line-feed delimited so offhand it would seem possible to parse if one really wanted to pursue it.
Regards,
- Alan |
|