ID |
Date |
Icon |
Author |
Author Email |
Category |
OS |
ELOG Version |
Subject |
67296
|
Wed Jul 4 13:58:23 2012 |
| Richard Stamper | richard.stamper@stfc.ac.uk | Question | All | 2.9.2 | Number of conditional attributes |
Is there a limit on the number of conditions that can be simultaneously active in a log? When I activate more than 10 conditions I start to see side effects with other conditions being deactivated. I think this is due to the hard-coded array size of 10 for clist in the match_param function in elogd.c. If so, could this limit be increased?
Are there other limits on the number of conditions, or the length of condition names? If I've understood the code right, the _condition string holds a comma-separated list of the active conditions, so the 256 byte length of this will also put some limit on the number of conditions that can be active. |
67303
|
Fri Jul 13 17:09:58 2012 |
| Richard Stamper | richard.stamper@stfc.ac.uk | Question | All | 2.9.2 | Re: Number of conditional attributes |
Stefan Ritt wrote: |
Richard Stamper wrote: |
Is there a limit on the number of conditions that can be simultaneously active in a log? When I activate more than 10 conditions I start to see side effects with other conditions being deactivated. I think this is due to the hard-coded array size of 10 for clist in the match_param function in elogd.c. If so, could this limit be increased?
Are there other limits on the number of conditions, or the length of condition names? If I've understood the code right, the _condition string holds a comma-separated list of the active conditions, so the 256 byte length of this will also put some limit on the number of conditions that can be active.
|
Ups. I never imagined that someone would use more than 10 conditions. I'm not 100% sure if the problem is the clist array, but can you try to set it to 20 and see if it gets better? You can also send me your config file and I can try it myself.
|
I'll try increasing the list size(s), and will also prepare a simplified config file for you to look at. Maybe there is a another way to implement what I am trying to achieve?
In general terms I am trying to give an e-log a "memory" of what has been recorded previously in order to constrain what is permissible to record next. I do this by starting a log with an initial entry, then alter the config so that users can add records only by duplicating the last record. The log records the current state of some variables, and allows users to record changes to the state of any of these variables. Conditions are used to constrain the permitted state changes, depending on the current state; conditions are also used, with subst options, to update the current state variables when changes are made.
Specifically, we have "Mate-Demate" logs for connectors to record when connectors are mated and demated. Previously we just had an attribute for each connector in an assembly with options "Mate", "Demate" and "-" to indicate that either a mate or demate was carried out or that the connector was not touched on this occasion (although others were). My cunning plan was to ensure that a "Demate" (or no-op) was possible only if the connector is currently mated, and conversely that a "Mate" (or no-op) was possible only if the connector is currently demated. For each connector (e.g. ConnectorA), there are now two attributes
- "ConnectorA state", to record the current state, and
- "ConnectorA" to record any change.
A new record can be created only by duplicating the last record, thus copying the current state of the connectors, and for each connector the relevant config file entries are like this:
Show Attributes = ConnectorA
Show Attributes Edit = ConnectorA state, ConnectorA
Locked Attributes = ConnectorA state
Preset on duplicate ConnectorA = -
Options ConnectorA state = Mate{1}, Demate{2}
{2} Options ConnectorA = -, Mate{3}
{1} Options ConnectorA = -, Demate{3}
{3} Subst ConnectorA state = $ConnectorA
The logbook is set up with a record with "ConnectorA state" set to "Demate", which constrains "ConnectorA" to record either a no-op or a mate; if a mate is subsequently recorded then the Subst option for "ConnectorA state" substitutes the new status ("Mate") for the connector before the record is saved; in the new last record "ConnectorA state" is now set to "Mate" which permits only a demate; when a no-op is selected the state is unchanged, having been inherited through duplication from the last record. The number of conditions used is one per "ConnectorX state" attribute, plus one for each connector whose state is changed, so for assemblies with more than 5 connectors it is possible to have more than 10 conditions active at once.
|
Draft
|
Fri Aug 7 16:13:09 2015 |
| Richard Stamper | richard.stamper@stfc.ac.uk | Question | Windows | 3.0 | Re: ELOG 3.0 plus and MS Windows issues. |
William Wong wrote: |
Thank you for recompiling ELOG. Unfortunately, there is no change in all the test machines
I ran the newly compiled ELOG 3.1.1-1 on. I will use the 2.x version until our systems move
to a new operating system or I can find someone in my IT department who knows how to compile programs
from the source code.
If anyone else has suggestions or could compile the source for us to try, please speak up. There are
many installations of obsolete operating systems in production :
Stefan Ritt wrote: |
I recompiled the executables according to
https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/jj851139.aspx
and replaces the elog311-1.exe distribution. Can you try if it works? Unfortunately I don't have a XP machine here.
/Stefan
William Wong wrote: |
Greetings all. A few ELOG users have posted issues with ELOG 3.0 and newer not working with a variety of MS Windows operating systems,.
I have also encountered a similar problem in my environment.
For the following operating systems:
1) Windows XP SP3 (32-bit)
2) Windows Server 2003 SP 2 (32-bit)
when either elog.exe or elogd.exe are run from command line or file manager, the operating system reports the program is not a Win32 application.
I have other test computers that succesfully ran ELOG 3.0, 3.1 and 3.1.1
1) Windows Vista Enterprise (32-bit)
2) Windows 7 Professional (64-bit)
Has ELOG 3.x and newer changed in regards to support for MS Windows but is not documented on the
official ELOG documentation?
Any help would be most appreciated.
NOTE: The current production ELOG I use on Windows Server 2003 is 2.92-2475 but I would like to use the
features available on the 3,.x versions. Unfortunately, I am not able to change my production operating system.
|
|
|
|
68097
|
Wed Aug 19 17:08:56 2015 |
| Richard Stamper | richard.stamper@stfc.ac.uk | Info | Windows | 3.x.y | Compiling for Windows |
I am interested in using LDAP authentication for elogd on Windows for which it looks like I need to compile from source, enabling LDAP in the make file.
Does anyone have advice on build environments for Windows in which they have had success making elog? Free ones preferably, such as Cygwin. |
68143
|
Tue Oct 13 12:39:14 2015 |
| Richard Stamper | richard.stamper@stfc.ac.uk | Question | Windows | 3.1.0-c701f01 | Re: FCKEditor not working correctly on a Windows server. |
If you are using IE as your browser, the problem may be with that rather than the server. By default IE 11 display intranet sites in a "Compatibility mode" which breaks the FCKEditor in Elog version 3. Fortunately this mode can be disabled, which is what I have had to advise users here to do.
- Click on the "cogwheel" and select "Compatibility settings"
- Deselect "Display intranet sites in Compatibility view"
Pictures attached
Marty Jansen wrote: |
Sorry for the late reply. I have installed a slightly newer version of Elog, but the results are the same. I do get de the 3 editor bars, but the top 2 are greyed out and the bottom one doesn't do anything if clicked. I have commented out the lines that refer to the online equation editor, but that doesn't help much either. I think I let it rest. The old 2.9.xx version still works great, so we leave it at that.
Thanks anyway for the suggestions
Marty
Marty Jansen wrote: |
Hi,
After working many years with previous versions of ELOG, I decided to update to the latest version.
I have installed ELOG version 3.1.0 on a WIndows 2012R2 server with IE 1. The editor is showing up, but everything is greyed out, execpt for some items on the bottom row. (Style, Lettertype...) and after I do load a preset text form with different colors, the page remains white. The tables and text in the form is showing up.
The previous version with the older editor was working great on the same server.
Any suggestions?
|
|
|
Attachment 1: cogwheel.png
|
|
Attachment 2: settings.png
|
|
68670
|
Tue Aug 22 14:19:43 2017 |
| Richard Stamper | richard.stamper@stfc.ac.uk | Question | Windows | 3.1.2 | HTML in attribute values |
When one has "Allow HTML = 1" to permit HTML in attribute values, is it only a subset of HTML that is rendered?
I find that <br> and <a href="..."> tags are properly rendered, for example, but lists with <ol> and <ul> are not. |
68672
|
Tue Aug 22 14:36:46 2017 |
| Richard Stamper | richard.stamper@stfc.ac.uk | Question | Windows | 3.1.2 | Re: HTML in attribute values |
Isn't that list in the message text rather than as an attribute value?
Stefan Ritt wrote: |
- As you can see...
- <UL> is possible
Richard Stamper wrote: |
When one has "Allow HTML = 1" to permit HTML in attribute values, is it only a subset of HTML that is rendered?
I find that <br> and <a href="..."> tags are properly rendered, for example, but lists with <ol> and <ul> are not.
|
|
|
68674
|
Tue Aug 22 14:58:09 2017 |
| Richard Stamper | richard.stamper@stfc.ac.uk | Question | Windows | 3.1.2 | Re: HTML in attribute values |
Exactly the information I was after - thanks! I'll simulate fancier markup as necessary.
Stefan Ritt wrote: |
Sorry, I misread your question. Only following HTML tags are allowed in attributes:
<a>
<img>
<b>
<i>
<p>
<br>
<hr>
This is for some internal reason. Probably you can mimick <ul> with bullets and <p> tags.
Stefan
Richard Stamper wrote: |
Isn't that list in the message text rather than as an attribute value?
Stefan Ritt wrote: |
- As you can see...
- <UL> is possible
Richard Stamper wrote: |
When one has "Allow HTML = 1" to permit HTML in attribute values, is it only a subset of HTML that is rendered?
I find that <br> and <a href="..."> tags are properly rendered, for example, but lists with <ol> and <ul> are not.
|
|
|
|
|