> I saw in the doc that an attribute cant be bigger than 100 char. but I couldn't figure the maximum size for options...  I'm wondering if the issue comes from the browser not refreshing correctly or if its elog..

The number of possible options is limited in elog to 100. This is defined by MAX_N_LIST in elogd.h. You can try to increase it and recompile elogd, but no guarantee that this works.

The reason that it *sometimes* work is really a bug, I should do better limit checkings...

/Stefan

Just answer it myself : I thought of the checkboxes in front of the attributes as boolean. However, it has to to with the browse feature filtered browsing =1= In this way you can, when checking one of the checkboxes, browse to the same item clicking the next and previous button. Sorry , my question was about RTFM ( Read The Fucking Manual ) So this question is solved.

However , it would be nice to have a checkbox in front of one attribute. Suppose you have a lot a entries in a record ,that are readonly( predefined). The user of the form must only confirm that a job is done by checking the checkbox without going to the edit mode. So, the checkbox is writable in readonly mode. I can inmagine something like : attribute record check = attribute in the configuration file. In this way the user of the form says : job done. There can be only one checkbox for the record.

[ job done]  [ customer ] [ activity ] [ What should be done ]
[X]           BLA          Check job1   Backup mail check
[]            BLA1         Check job2   check error report
[X]           Bla2         Check job3   check MQ jobs

Thanks for your reading this

[ job done]  [ customer ] [ activity ] [ What should be done ]
[]            BLA          Check job1   Backup mail check
[]            BLA1         Check job2   check error report
[]            Bla2         Check job3   check MQ jobs

> Is there any way to search for all attributes _except_ a certain value?

If you mean "search all attrubutes except one specific attribute" then the
answer is no.

> Can "Display" links work with multiple options? 
>
> "ABC | DEF" is currently one link.
>
> Ideally, it would be two links, each formatted per the "Display" string.

I don't understand your qyestion. You have an attribute with MOptions, so you
get "ABC | DEF" displayed in the list view. All links in each line point to
the individual entry, so what is the benefit of having two links for ABC and DEF?

> Is there a way to disable wildcard matching in searches?
> A search for "1" returns "1" and "10" and "11".  
> Is there a way to perform an explict match?
> Could there be a numeric match if the attribute type is numeric?

That should all be possible with the build-in regular expression. Just type

\b1\b

where "\b" means "word boundary". I agree that a numerical comparison for
numerical attributes would be better, I will put that on the to-do list.

> Could there be a multi-value option for free text fields, e.g. comma-
> separated?  This would allow multi-parent relationships between log items. 
> 
> E.g. specifying 12, 15 as a value would create unique Display links 
> for "12" and "15", based on the Display specification for that attribute.
> 
> This would be like "multiple fixed options", for the purpose of formatting.

Again, this is not clear to me. What do you mean by "display specification"?
Is it the "List display = ..." option or the "Format attribute = ..." option?
What is a "multi-parent relationship"? Why do you need multiple options for a
free text field? Why can't you use the MOptions specification?

> > Can "Display" links work with multiple options? 
> >
> > "ABC | DEF" is currently one link.
> >
> > Ideally, it would be two links, each formatted per the "Display" string.
> 
> I don't understand your qyestion. You have an attribute with MOptions, so you
> get "ABC | DEF" displayed in the list view. All links in each line point to
> the individual entry, so what is the benefit of having two links for ABC and DEF?

Display Subsystem = <a href="/LogBook1/?Subsystem=$Subsystem" style="color:
saddlebrown">$Subsystem</a>

ABC and DEF links would perform filter searches of a _different_ logbook.   

Separate links would perform separate searches.

> > Is there a way to disable wildcard matching in searches?
> > A search for "1" returns "1" and "10" and "11".  
> > Is there a way to perform an explict match?
> > Could there be a numeric match if the attribute type is numeric?
> 
> That should all be possible with the build-in regular expression. Just type
> 
> \b1\b
> 
> where "\b" means "word boundary". I agree that a numerical comparison for
> numerical attributes would be better, I will put that on the to-do list.

Thanks, this is very helpful.

> > Could there be a multi-value option for free text fields, e.g. comma-
> > separated?  This would allow multi-parent relationships between log items. 
> > 
> > E.g. specifying 12, 15 as a value would create unique Display links 
> > for "12" and "15", based on the Display specification for that attribute.
> > 
> > This would be like "multiple fixed options", for the purpose of formatting.
> 
> Again, this is not clear to me. What do you mean by "display specification"?
> Is it the "List display = ..." option or the "Format attribute = ..." option?
> What is a "multi-parent relationship"? Why do you need multiple options for a
> free text field? Why can't you use the MOptions specification?

MOptions does not work because the options are not fixed.   The options can be any
numeric ID for items in a related logbook.

Consider the case of two logbooks, where we wish to associate items in the second
logbook with more than one item in the first logbook.  We could define separate
attributes for each "parent item", e.g. Parent1, Parent2, Parent3, then use a
"Display" spec to convert a numeric ID into a hyperlink to the first logbook's item.
  The exact relationship is not important, could be parent/peer/child - some generic
relationship.

The benefit here would be the same as having separate links for MOptions attribute
values.

> Display Subsystem = <a href="/LogBook1/?Subsystem=$Subsystem" style="color:
> saddlebrown">$Subsystem</a>
> 
> ABC and DEF links would perform filter searches of a _different_ logbook.   
> 
> MOptions does not work because the options are not fixed.   The options can be any
> numeric ID for items in a related logbook.
> 
> Consider the case of two logbooks, where we wish to associate items in the second
> logbook with more than one item in the first logbook.  We could define separate
> attributes for each "parent item", e.g. Parent1, Parent2, Parent3, then use a
> "Display" spec to convert a numeric ID into a hyperlink to the first logbook's item.
>   The exact relationship is not important, could be parent/peer/child - some generic
> relationship.
> 
> The benefit here would be the same as having separate links for MOptions attribute
> values.

Ah, now I'm getting your point. You want kind of relational database where a logbook
correspond to a table, using the entry ID as primary key. Well, elog was not designed
having that in mind, so its capabilities will always be very limited. A MySQL with
phpMyAdmin might be better for that.

But what you could do is to put manual links betweek logbooks. If you enter in an
attribute following text:

elog:Forum/816 elog:Forum/806

then you get two links to entries 806 and 816. Writing this is a bit more than just 
"816 | 806", but it's less than writing directly an HTML link.

No. At least there is no simple method.

You would need to edit the source code and recompile elogd. But the number 256 is used for about 300 times in the source code, you'll have a hard time finding the right one to increase.

Cheers, Andreas