| ID |
Date |
Icon |
Author |
Author Email |
Category |
OS |
ELOG Version |
Subject |
|
2123
|
Tue Feb 6 18:19:57 2007 |
 | Grant Jeffcote | grant@jeffcote.org | Bug report | Windows | 2.6.3-1776 | Re: ELOG Crash by many email address |
| Stefan Ritt wrote: |
| An Thai wrote: | Hello,
when I try to set above 112 email addresses in
"Email All = ..."
the Elog service will crash with the error ntdll.dll or memory addresses x0000000.
This problem does not happen when I reduce the number of email addresses.
Have you had the same problem? |
I fixed that crash in the current version, but there is actually a limit of 100 email addresses. So anyhow you won't get the 12 ones above 100. I will try to increase that limit in the next version of elog. |
Hi Stefan,
I'm also having a problem in the latest version with Elog crashing with multiple email addresses.
I am using 'MOptions' for email list selection using the execute shell script to send a predefined list (ie. the email list is in a text file not in the Elog config).
It seems when the list contains exactly 9 addresses it causes Elog to crash with a failure similar to An's, any less or any more and they are sent fine? Also when certain combinations of multiple list selections are made the Elog process will also crash? I am running the Elog process as an application (ie. not as a service, as per An's workaround) as it's the only way I can get the -x switch to work with Windows, this means the Elog daemon has to be manually restarted. Running WinXP SP2.
Any suggestions?
Thx |
|
2125
|
Tue Feb 6 21:46:59 2007 |
 | Grant Jeffcote | grant@jeffcote.org | Request | Windows | | Re: Tool Tips |
| Stefan Ritt wrote: |
| Grant Jeffcote wrote: | | I can't seem to get the Tooltips to show up using the 'ROptions' (radio buttons) though? Could you check if it is available for this please? |
Did I tell that it also works with 'ROptions' ??? It does not! I implemented this just now in revision 1788. The fix will be contained in the next release. |
Sorry, just checking. 
Many thanks Stefan  |
|
2283
|
Sat Jun 30 04:58:32 2007 |
 | Grant Jeffcote | grant@jeffcote.org | Bug report | Windows | 2.65-2 | Fixed Attribute fields blank? |
Hi Stefan,
Not sure if this is my configuration only but in your latest compiled release V2.6.5-1873 when I do a reply or edit on an entry where I have specified Fixed Attributes Edit or Reply these fields now show blank on the entry page? They are still uneditable as a field of course and the text still shows on the list view display page but no text shows in these fields until re/submitted.
Is this a new feature or just mine, reverting back to the previous release restores normality ;o) |
|
2285
|
Sat Jun 30 21:29:30 2007 |
| Grant Jeffcote | grant@jeffcote.org | Bug report | Windows | 2.65-2 | Re: Fixed Attribute fields blank? |
| Stefan Ritt wrote: |
| Grant Jeffcote wrote: | | Not sure if this is my configuration only but in your latest compiled release V2.6.5-1873 when I do a reply or edit on an entry where I have specified Fixed Attributes Edit or Reply these fields now show blank on the entry page? They are still uneditable as a field of course and the text still shows on the list view display page but no text shows in these fields until re/submitted. |
I'm playing with attributes right now since I'm going to implement a "multiple edit", where one can change attributes of several entries at the same time, but I cannot reproduce your problem with V2.6.5-1874 and this config file:
[demo]
Attributes = Author, Subject
Fixed Attributes Edit = Subject
Fixed Attributes Reply = Subject
Either I fixed it accidentally between 1873 and 1874 or it is config file related. Can you try that version and the little config file above? Since you use Windows, I made a elog265-3 for you. If you find that the little config works and your's doesn't, please send me your config. |
Great job, thanks Stefan.
Accidental fix, new version works perfectly without any config file change. |
|
2302
|
Fri Aug 3 15:49:05 2007 |
 | Grant Jeffcote | grant@jeffcote.org | Question | Windows | 2.6.5-1903 | Boolean |
Stefan,
I've noticed in the latest release when using the 'Find' page that any boolean expression (tick box) is now shown as '0,1 or unspecified'. Is this intentional? My colleagues are finding it hard to get their heads around what to choose and preferred the old 'Tick Box' option. Have there been changes to the configuration arguments used for Boolean that I've missed?
Thanks |
|
2304
|
Fri Aug 3 17:03:46 2007 |
| Grant Jeffcote | grant@jeffcote.org | Question | Windows | 2.6.5-1903 | Re: Boolean |
| Stefan Ritt wrote: |
| Grant Jeffcote wrote: | | I've noticed in the latest release when using the 'Find' page that any boolean expression (tick box) is now shown as '0,1 or unspecified'. Is this intentional? My colleagues are finding it hard to get their heads around what to choose and preferred the old 'Tick Box' option. Have there been changes to the configuration arguments used for Boolean that I've missed? |
Well, maybe you didn't realize, but searching for boolean attributes never really worked. If you want to search for entries where a boolean is true (or 1), then you could check the tick box in the past. But if you wanted to search for all entries were an attribute was false (not true) you could not do it, because the system assumed you are not interested in an attribute if the tick box was not checked. With the new way, you could either specify 'unspecified' meaning you are not filtering on this attribute, or you can explicitly specify '0', to look for entries where the attribute is false. The best would be to have a three-state tick box, which can be on/off/grayed. Under Windows API this does exist, but not in HTML. So I had to go with the three radio buttons.
Now one could argue how to name boolean states. There are several options:
- 0 / 1
- no / yes
- false / true
- off /on
I have chosen the first one, but that's kind of arbitrary. If the community believes that another one is better, I'm willing to change. |
Stefan
Thanks for the great explanation.
What are the chances of having a choice of the four options (as mentioned in your list) somehow so that when boolean-x is used (for example) in the configuration file the applicable option text is shown in the 'Find' page?
ie.
boolean-x = 0/1
boolean-y = no / yes
boolean-z = false / true
etc.
A long shot perhaps but don't know until you ask? 
Thanks |
|
65828
|
Sat Apr 12 22:04:58 2008 |
| Grant Jeffcote | grant@jeffcote.org | Request | All | | Re: attachment indicator in summary view |
Hi Stefan,
When using 2.7.3-2095 I can't seem to get the paperclip/s to show, just an additional field in the summary view (named Attachments) with the attachment file names below? Am I missing something?
Thanks
|
Dennis Seitz wrote
|
|
| Stefan Ritt wrote: |
|
| Dennis Seitz wrote: |
|
It would be nice to have the option of including an attachment indicator column in summary view to show if an entry has any attachments.
|
Nice idea. I implemented that feature, as can be seen at the contributions logbook for example. It will be contained in the next release.
|
Thanks!
|
|
|
65878
|
Mon May 12 10:16:21 2008 |
| Grant Jeffcote | grant@jeffcote.org | Question | | 2.7.3-1024 | Access Control |
Hi Stefan,
We have a configuration where different sites have their own logbooks all under the same server, these are accessed by relevant parties as you might expect by selecting the appropriate tab at the top of the page.
Everyone has visibility of everyone elses logbook as a guest but we have purposely limited the 'Guest' users view (hiding the text portion etc) for various reasons.
We would now like to allow certain parties to view certain logbooks in their entirety but with a 'Read Only' view, I see this can be done but only using a common password. (Read password = <encoded password>)
At present we can give others a full view by adding them to the 'Users' list for each individual logbook, this unfortunately also gives them 'write' access. Also if they click on the tab for a logbook that they are not a 'User' for they are logged out of their existing logbook forcing them to have to log back on. If they are designated in a 'Read Only' viewers list for that logbook then their existing password would presumably be read from the global password file and they wouldn't be logged out?
I would like to be able to implement a 'Read' access view for some parties but not have a common password (use the password file?) and not force the other party to re-logon to view the other logbook.
Something like the ability to add a "Read user = <user list>" in each logbook as can be done with 'Login User' and 'Admin User' at present would be great.
Could you let me know if this is feasible please?
Many thanks in advance. |