Demo Discussion
Forum Config Examples Contributions Vulnerabilities
  Discussion forum about ELOG, Page 693 of 806  Not logged in ELOG logo
 Find |  Login |  Help 
 Full | Summary | Threaded | Hide attachments  Show only new entries    6447 Entries 
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 692, 693, 694 ... 804, 805, 806   Next  
ID Date Icon Author Author Email Category OSdown ELOG Version Subject
  66287   Mon Apr 6 20:46:42 2009 Question Val Schmidtvschmidt@ldeo.columbia.eduQuestionAll2.6.2Specifying the size of am image attachment

 Hello,

I'm curious, is it possible to specify (perhaps by default) the rendered size of an attached image. For example, I'd like all images uploaded to be scaled to 100% of the browser window size so a large image is not most off the screen. What I want is to specify the width="100" attribute of the <img /> tag, but it's not clear 1) how do to this for an attachment and 2) if it might be possible to do this in the config file for all img attachments.

 

Thanks,

 

Val

  66288   Wed Apr 8 12:25:07 2009 Reply Stefan Rittstefan.ritt@psi.chQuestionAll2.6.2Re: Specifying the size of am image attachment

 

Val Schmidt wrote:

I'm curious, is it possible to specify (perhaps by default) the rendered size of an attached image. For example, I'd like all images uploaded to be scaled to 100% of the browser window size so a large image is not most off the screen. What I want is to specify the width="100" attribute of the <img /> tag, but it's not clear 1) how do to this for an attachment and 2) if it might be possible to do this in the config file for all img attachments.

 

When you use the ImageMagick package, attached images are scaled to a predefined size using the option "Thumbnail size = ...". See the documentation for that option for details. 

  66290   Thu Apr 9 09:54:39 2009 Reply W.KosterW.Koster@rug.nlQuestionAll2.7.5-2168Re: How to configure eLog to send an e-mail notification when new logbook entry time is reached?

Tero Suominen wrote:

 

 Hi! Thanks for the quick response. Do you have any suggestions on which calendar applications I should start looking for for this purpose?

Thanks,

Tero

 

You could write a shell script, run it through cron and send mail from that. (even in windows I assume)

 

 

  66314   Tue Apr 14 22:51:15 2009 Warning Simon Pattonsjpatton@lbl.govBug fixAll2.7.6Long cookie content is not handled properly.
I discovered the infinite loop in 2.7.5 which can happen when a cookie's content is longer that the cookie array
designed to hold it. I also note that this issue has been addressed in 2.7.6, but the solution does not appear
to be correct and it can end up completely confusing the cookie extraction.

In 2.7.5 the code was:
    for (i = 0; *p && *p != ';' && *p != '\r' && *p != '\n' ; )
        if (i < (int) sizeof(cookie)-1)
            cookie[i++] = *p++;

While in 2.7.6 is became:
    for (i = 0; *p && *p != ';' && *p != '\r' && *p != '\n';)
        if (i < (int) sizeof(cookie) - 1)
            cookie[i++] = *p++;
        else
            break;

This leaves 'p' pointing to the middle of the cookie's content and I can not see that this is corrected in the loop (sorry if I've missed that).

The solution I used to patch 2.7.5 was the following:
    for (i = 0; *p && *p != ';' && *p != '\r' && *p != '\n' ; ++p)
        if (i < (int) sizeof(cookie)-1)
            cookie[i++] = *p;

which simply truncates the contents of the cookie (which is assumed not to be an elogd cookie) but leaves 'p' in the right place to extract the next one.
  66315   Wed Apr 15 09:26:37 2009 Reply Stefan Rittstefan.ritt@psi.chBug fixAll2.7.6Re: Long cookie content is not handled properly.

Simon Patton wrote:
I discovered the infinite loop in 2.7.5 which can happen when a cookie's content is longer that the cookie array
designed to hold it. I also note that this issue has been addressed in 2.7.6, but the solution does not appear
to be correct and it can end up completely confusing the cookie extraction.

In 2.7.5 the code was:
    for (i = 0; *p && *p != ';' && *p != '\r' && *p != '\n' ; )
        if (i < (int) sizeof(cookie)-1)
            cookie[i++] = *p++;

While in 2.7.6 is became:
    for (i = 0; *p && *p != ';' && *p != '\r' && *p != '\n';)
        if (i < (int) sizeof(cookie) - 1)
            cookie[i++] = *p++;
        else
            break;

This leaves 'p' pointing to the middle of the cookie's content and I can not see that this is corrected in the loop (sorry if I've missed that).

The solution I used to patch 2.7.5 was the following:
    for (i = 0; *p && *p != ';' && *p != '\r' && *p != '\n' ; ++p)
        if (i < (int) sizeof(cookie)-1)
            cookie[i++] = *p;

which simply truncates the contents of the cookie (which is assumed not to be an elogd cookie) but leaves 'p' in the right place to extract the next one.


You're absolutely right about that. I incorporated your patch into revision #2192.
  66320   Wed Apr 15 17:57:19 2009 Question Dennis Seitzdenseitz@comcast.netQuestionAll2.7.5Config so that users can delete only their own entries?
I've tried

Deny_Delete = All
Allow Delete = $author

and just
Allow Delete = $author

But either users can delete anyone's entries, or they can't delete any entries.

Am I missing something? If not, can you add the capability to allow users to delete, but only their own entries?

Thanks as usual for a great piece of code!
  66321   Thu Apr 16 08:34:03 2009 Reply Stefan Rittstefan.ritt@psi.chQuestionAll2.7.5Re: Config so that users can delete only their own entries?

Dennis Seitz wrote:
I've tried

Deny_Delete = All
Allow Delete = $author

and just
Allow Delete = $author

But either users can delete anyone's entries, or they can't delete any entries.

Am I missing something? If not, can you add the capability to allow users to delete, but only their own entries?

Thanks as usual for a great piece of code!


You cannot put $author into any Allow or Deny option, only explicit login names (not "full" names). What you want however is
Restrict Edit = 1

which lets only the original author either delete or edit entries. If you use that option, you probably want as well
Preset Author = $long_name
Preset on reply Author = $long_name
Preset on duplicate Author = $long_name
Locked Attributes = Author

So a user cannot pretend to be somebody else. You also need a valid "admin user = ..." statement. Note that the admin user always can delete/edit entries. If no admin user is defined, everybody has automatically admin rights, so Restrict Edit has no effect.
  66323   Sat Apr 18 00:33:53 2009 Reply Dennis Seitzdseitz@berkeley.eduQuestionAll2.7.5Re: Config so that users can delete only their own entries?
Thanks for reminding me of that, it will do fine. A suggestion: Separate Restrict Edit into Restrict Edit and Restrict Delete or some functional equivalent. Then we have the choice to restrict one or the other or both. Is that worth doing?


Stefan Ritt wrote:

Dennis Seitz wrote:
I've tried

Deny_Delete = All
Allow Delete = $author

and just
Allow Delete = $author

But either users can delete anyone's entries, or they can't delete any entries.

Am I missing something? If not, can you add the capability to allow users to delete, but only their own entries?

Thanks as usual for a great piece of code!


You cannot put $author into any Allow or Deny option, only explicit login names (not "full" names). What you want however is
Restrict Edit = 1

which lets only the original author either delete or edit entries. If you use that option, you probably want as well
Preset Author = $long_name
Preset on reply Author = $long_name
Preset on duplicate Author = $long_name
Locked Attributes = Author

So a user cannot pretend to be somebody else. You also need a valid "admin user = ..." statement. Note that the admin user always can delete/edit entries. If no admin user is defined, everybody has automatically admin rights, so Restrict Edit has no effect.
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 692, 693, 694 ... 804, 805, 806   Next  
ELOG V3.1.5-3fb85fa6