> Stefan told me that the change was because some users were having thousands of yymmdda.log files
> in the logbook directories

I am one of those users. The elog for the ALPHA experiment at CERN goes back to 2006 or so,
with large volume of messages and huge number of attachments. The MIDAS forum elog goes back to 2003.
The TRIUMF DAQ internal elog goes back to 2001.

I think the new organization is an improvement.

K.O.

> > Stefan told me that the change was because some users were having thousands of yymmdda.log files
> > in the logbook directories
> 
> I am one of those users. The elog for the ALPHA experiment at CERN goes back to 2006 or so,
> with large volume of messages and huge number of attachments. The MIDAS forum elog goes back to 2003.
> The TRIUMF DAQ internal elog goes back to 2001.
> 
> I think the new organization is an improvement.
> 
> K.O.
Hi Konstantin,

I've used elog as my main reference/logbook since 2005.  I had looked at it in its version 1 incarnation, but
didn't get on with that so well.  

My biggest problem in the past was running elog on two physically separated linux boxes, and for complex reasons
all the logbooks were on a memory stick (plus the vital backup)!  Hence my previously mentioned memory issues - in
my case the size of the available memory sticks.
David.

The size is defined by the variable MAX_CONTENT_LENGTH in elogd.c which is set to 10 MB. But email attachments are encoded in ASCII form, so they take useually 3-4 times the space of the binary format. If you have problems with large emails, you can use the option "Email Format = 111" which causes only the names of attachments to be included in email notifications. Users can then still click on the elog link inside the email notification and download the attachment from the elog page.

> elogd is spewing these messages about unknown cookies:
> 
> Received unknown cookie "is_returning"
> Received unknown cookie "__utma"
> Received unknown cookie "__utmz"
> Received unknown cookie "SSESSee3cc9c70bedf9a840203765bf409d7b"
> Received unknown cookie "SESSee3cc9c70bedf9a840203765bf409d7b"
> Received unknown cookie "MidasWikiUserID"
> Received unknown cookie "MidasWikiUserName"
> Received unknown cookie "MidasWiki_session"
> 
> K.O.

Delete your cookies ;-)

Elog just logs all unknown cookies for trouble shooting. This should go under verbose output. I changed that just now.

Stefan

> > elogd is spewing these messages about unknown cookies:
> > 
> > Received unknown cookie "is_returning"
> > Received unknown cookie "__utma"
> > Received unknown cookie "__utmz"
> > Received unknown cookie "SSESSee3cc9c70bedf9a840203765bf409d7b"
> > Received unknown cookie "SESSee3cc9c70bedf9a840203765bf409d7b"
> > Received unknown cookie "MidasWikiUserID"
> > Received unknown cookie "MidasWikiUserName"
> > Received unknown cookie "MidasWiki_session"
> > 
> > K.O.
> 
> Delete your cookies ;-)
> 

No, go. The MidasWikiUserName cookie will log me out of the MidasWiki, etc.

But why are MidasWiki cookies sent to the elog? Ah, yes, they all run from the same https://midas.triumf.ca.

This explains why elog complains about unexpected cookies - elogd does not expect to receive
mediawiki cookies - it does not expect to share the https:// connection with somebody else.

This is good to know for the future. (I.e. if mediawiki is confused by elogd cookies).

K.O.

I just updated to the latest official release (V3.1.0-2411f95) and have this problem:

The Time Stamp button pastes the logbook name when "Time format" is not specified in elogd.cfg, and when it is set to "%m/%d/%Y %H:%M", it adds the string "5/28/."

My users are loving the new functionality added in 3.1!

I wanted to reply to the post "Three problems..." and then changed my mind. 
But since this logbook does not allow to delete entries (not even my own) I was neither able to remove the draft
nor the final entry.

Another strange thing: the draft got submitted when I hit the "Back" button after reopening it.

Cheers
Andreas

Hi,

I updated an old elog entry and resubmit it as new by checking the box resubmit as new.   Does the subject line should said it is a "New ELOG entry" instead of "Updated ELOG entry"?  Thank you.

Also when some people submit a new elog, the subject line is "Updated ELOG entry".  This is a bit odd.  I can't reproduce that bug when I did my test. 

Jacky