Same index as logbook Machine Log
elogd: src/elogd.c:727: xfree: Assertion `*((unsigned int *) (temp - 4)) == 0xdeadc0de' failed.
Received unknown cookie "wikidb_mw__session"
Received unknown cookie "wikidb_mw__session"

well, I need to reproduce your problem in order to fix it. The failed assertation you get is due to some internal writing beyond array boundaries, but I have no clue which part of the code makes this. It might be related to the fact that you use the same index (via Subdir=...) for two logbooks. In this scenario, you are only allowed to modify/add entries to one logbook, not the other. The other one may only be used for reading. And even then it's not guaranteed that new entries show up in the second logbook immediately, you might have to restart the server in order to re-index the logbooks. Internally, the daemon does not know that two logbooks are "the same" and one instance will not realize if the other instance modifies the data "below its feet". Can you try to give up the double logbooks and see if the problem goes away?

 Hm... I have implemented this set-up originally based on this: https://midas.psi.ch/elogs/Forum/66024. The "double logbook" is a machine log with a "software" (OS installations etc.) and a "hardware" (CPU, RAM, etc.) view. The "hardware" view has the "Subdir=" statement. Thinking about it, the "software" view is used most - I have several automatic scripts running which update the contents whenever a machine gets updated, re-installed and so on. The hardware part does not see much editing - until this week, when we decided to start an inventory... So, it's quite possible that we never noticed that this was iffy. For the rest of our goals, this set-up has worked fantastically - never noticed any problem with one view not updating, actually. Also, I do not remember any crashes with the other, single logbooks.

What I've done for now is to ask all team members to use only the software part (the one without the Subdir statement) to actually change content (the entry masks are the same in both versions) and use the hardware part just for viewing. I'll report back as soon as I get some feedback.

Nonetheless, given that this set-up has been a great help for us - if you ever get the chance to make this work (even) better, I'd be most grateful.

Regards,

Thomas

Well, for that I have to reproduce the problem. So best would be if you strip it down to the bare minimum in order to reproduce this reliably. Then you zip everything and send it to me. Then tell me what I have to edit and submit in order to stimulate the crash. Once this is successful, I can fix it.

Thank you - I shall look into that, though it'll probably take a while to prepare it.

I just ran into this little bug: I had defined a new logbook in my config file and suddenly got the message Attribute "Date" not allowed. While I did have several attributes starting with the word "Date" (e.g. "Date In Service", "Date Retired") I had no attribute "Date" in there. After some pondering and wildly commenting out lines, it finally dawned on me: I had used an attribute "ID" - which is also not allowed. However, it would be very helpful if the error message actually reflected that...

Oops, just a typo. The message Attribute "Date" not allowed should read Attribute "ID" not allowed. Fixed in the current SVN version. 

I'm not sure if this is the expected behavior, but it appears as though an attachment is not displayed in the list of attachments if you manually add a link to the attachment into the body of the entry.  I would greatly appreciate any advice on how to fix or change this behavior.

I will try to demonstrate with the two attachments on this entry.  There are two attachments in this entry, but only one appears in the standard view of the entry.

Picture_1.png.png 

Many thanks,

Devin

Well, you can have "inline" pictures like that:

In this case it is clumsy if this image gets displayed twice, once in the text and once as the attachment. So I look at the entry and if I find the image inlined, I suppress the display at the end. Now the "check if the image is shown inline" is a bit stupid, it just looks for the link. So I never thought that someone would just put a link in the text manually. I will have a look and see if I can change that.