I have an attribute formatted as a date (but not labeled as date) and is sorted as second priority. The sort works fine until I enter a date older than Jan 1st 2002. When I do this it is sorted as the latest. Is this a bug or simply not designed to use dates this old?

Thanks in advance,

Chris

 Sorry, my mistake. The cutoff date is anything before September 9th 2001 does not sort.

Workaround: you can modify your old entries and add a leading zero to all entries where your specific date field starts with a '9'.

Stefan: you should fix it at least well before 20-Nov-2286 18:46:40, when the same bug strikes again!

Andreas Luedeke wrote:

Chris Jennings wrote: Chris Jennings wrote: I have an attribute formatted as a date (but not labeled as date) and is sorted as second priority. The sort works fine until I enter a date older than Jan 1st 2002. When I do this it is sorted as the latest. Is this a bug or simply not designed to use dates this old? Thanks in advance, Chris  Sorry, my mistake. The cutoff date is anything before September 9th 2001 does not sort. I think I remember that this has been discussed earlier: it is a little bug in elogd. You can see where it comes from if you type in the little command 'date -d "9-Sep-2001 3:46:40" +%s' Converted to "seconds of the epoche" (seconds since 1970-01-01 00:00:00 UTC) the date "9-Sep-2001 3:46:40" has one digit more than "9-Sep-2001 3:46:39". Since elog makes a string comparison, suddenly 1'000'000'000 is less than 999'999'999; therefore the wrong sorting. Workaround: you can modify your old entries and add a leading zero to all entries where your specific date field starts with a '9'. Stefan: you should fix it at least well before 20-Nov-2286 18:46:40, when the same bug strikes again!

Ok, well before 2286 approaches I fixed that bug and committed it to the GIT repository (master branch).

/Stefan 

 I'm having some confusion with configuring my logbook.  In the global section of the logbook I have the quick filter enabled, but it is not a drop down list, only an editable text field:

I think it is an attributes issue, but I'm having some trouble making sense of those from the syntax page.  Here is my config file:

[global]

port = 8080

usr = vulcanstaff

Max content length = 1073741824

Menu commands = New, Edit, Delete, Reply, Find, Last day, Move to, Copy to, Import, Help

RSS Title = $subject, posted by $author on $entry time

RSS Entries = 10

Quick filter = Date, Subject, Subtext

Use Lock = 1

Reverse sort = 1

Required Attributes = Author, Subject

[Experiment_Logbook]

Theme = default

Comment = Experiment Logbook

Attributes = Author, Author Email, Type, Category, Subject

Options Type =  Other

Options Category = Start Up

Extendable Options =Category

Page Title = $Subject

You get a drop-down list if you define several options for an attribut, like

Options Category = Start Up, Start Down, Other

The you can select one of the categories from the drop-down list.

I forgot to mention - this is for searching the logbook.   So would the config file look more like this:

[global]

port = 8080

usr = vulcanstaff

Max content length = 1073741824

Menu commands = New, Edit, Delete, Reply, Find, Last day, Move to, Copy to, Import, Help

RSS Title = $subject, posted by $author on $entry time

RSS Entries = 10

Options Category = Date, Subject, Subtext

Quick filter = Date, Subject, Subtext

Use Lock = 1

Reverse sort = 1

Required Attributes = Author, Subject

I know that this is for searching. But you don't get the point. You have attributes, like Date, Category, Subject. Each attribute can either contain arbitrary text (like the subject), or one of a set of predefined values. So category can be, let's day, "one", "two", "three". You define the possible options of the category with

Options Category = one, two, three

If you then define the quick filter

Quick filter = Category

then you get for the category a drop-down box where you can select "one", "two" or "three". If you do so, elog shows all logbook entries where the category attribute has the selected value.

I hope that this is clearer now.