We have an auto-incrementing reference attribute defined as:

# RFC

Format RFC = 0,narrowattribname,narrowattribvalue,60,60
Preset RFC = RFC-######
Preset On Duplicate RFC = RFC-######
Tooltip RFC = A unique reference will be generated for this Request For Change

We also have a "Created by/when" attribute.  Looking at the values this seems to be set when the user clicks "New" whereas the time stamp that appears on the line after the  $@MID@$ seems to be set when the user clicks "Submit".

# Created

Format Created = 0,attribname,attribvalue,70,100
Preset Created = $long_name ($short_name) on $date
Preset On Duplicate Created = $long_name ($short_name) on $date

Every once in a while the incrementing stops working and the number 'sticks' or misses some out.  It looks as if it might be because multiple people are adding entries concurrently.  Could the occasion where there is a gap in the sequence (171-174) be where people abandoned changes (clicked on "Back") after having numbers allocated?  Here is a list showing the discrepancies.

Date        Item     Time Stamp (from the line after $@MID@$)  "Created" attribute time stamp

22/09/08    124      16:15:10                                   11:58

22/09/08    125      16:33:54                                   16:24

22/09/08    125      16:35:37                                   16:33              Should be 126

...

10/10/08    146      10:39:09                                   10:30                    Correct

10/10/08    146      10:46:57                                   10:35              Should be 147

10/10/08    147      13:04:03                                   13:02              Should be 148

10/10/08    148      15:11:38                                   15:00              Should be 149

...

17/11/08    171      10:21                                      10:17              Correct

17/11/08    174      14:30                                      13:47              Should be 172

17/11/08    175      16:14                                      16:04              Should be 173

17/11/08    176      16:49                                      16:38              Should be 174

...

25/11/08    187      15:49:58                                   15:47              Correct

25/11/08    187      15:52:39                                   15:48              Should be 188

25/11/08    188      16:49:56                                   16:44              Should be 189

25/11/08    188      16:52:40                                   16:40              Should be 190

25/11/08    188      16:55:17                                   16:43              Should be 191

Let me know if you need any more information.

regards

Steve

Tested SVN v 2147 and all looks OK

thanks

Steve

 Hi

This is to let you know that the increment problem has just happened again.

Item 206 has timestamp (from the line after $@MID@$) of 11:59:45 and "created" attribute timestamp of 11:29

overlapping with this, a second item 206 has timestamp of 12:04:02 and "created" attribute of 11:53

So, both users were entering information between 11:53 and 11:59:45 and both picked up the same increment number.

There's no easy solution tho, is there? If you pick up the increment number at the start so it can be displayed on screen and ensure uniqueness then, if a user cancels a new entry you end up with "holes" in the sequence.  If you pick it up at the end then you can't display it until the user presses submit.

regards

Steve

Attributes = Author, RFC, Subject
Preset RFC = <will be assigned when you submit>
Preset on duplicate RFC = <will be assigned when you submit>
Locked attributes = RFC  Subst RFC = RFC-######

 Stefan

Thanks for fix - I've just tested it and it works beautifully.

regards

Steve

If I open an elog entry as read-only then attachments show as links which can be clicked to open the attachment.  However, if I open an entry using Edit then attachments show as text with a delete button - I would expect to be able to read attachments when editing an entry but there may be some good reason for not being able to.

Also, on attachments, if I click on the attachment icon (paperclip) on the list page the URL encodes "/" as "%2f", e.g.

http://xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx:8080/Change_Log/..%2FChange_Log%2F090205_123135%2FCHANGE_CONTROL_NOTICE_050209.doc and I get the following error:

"Invalid URL: Change_Log/..%2FChange_Log%2F090205_123135%2FCHANGE_CONTROL_NOTICE_050209.doc" .  If I then change all occurrences of "%2f" to "/" the link works.

We don't use attachments very often but occasionally they are just what you need - and so is elog!

great piece of software - many thanks for sharing it

Steve

 Thanks - just downloaded and compiled the latest version and all is well

Thanks for a great piece of software - it does so much and is (mostly) so simple to use.  However, I do have a suggestion that (for me, at least) would make it even better -

I use elog for a variety of logging tasks but find that, because I want to see as complete a summary as possible, the list page can get very crowded with longer fields wrapping over several lines.  I would like to have more control over the way attributes are displayed here.  Specifically, being able to truncate data (e.g. to show just the first n characters of a description), being able to select a substring (e.g. displaying characters before the '@' character to remove the domain from an email address or displaying characters after the space to remove the day from a date in ddd dd/mm/yy format) and being able to concatenate fields (e.g. to show a reference in a single cell as "Incident 1234" by joining call type and call reference attributes).

regards

Steve

 Thanks for looking at the suggestion - it was only a 'nice to have', whereas elog is an essential!

regards