> 'sort attributes' sorts the logbook entries when they are displayed.  Or?

Right

> What I want is to rearrange the entry mask.  E.g. if 'Entry type' article is
> selected then the attributes 'Author', 'Journal', 'Title', and 'Year' 
> should be listed first, as they are required for this bibtex entry type.
> Is it possible with the current elogd version to also sort (rearrange) the 
> attributes in the entry mask?  If yes, how?  

Attributes are shown in the order you specify them in the config file, so what about

Attributes = Entry type, Author, Journal, Title, Year     ???

> > 'sort attributes' sorts the logbook entries when they are displayed.  Or?
> 
> Right
> 
> > What I want is to rearrange the entry mask.  E.g. if 'Entry type' article is
> > selected then the attributes 'Author', 'Journal', 'Title', and 'Year' 
> > should be listed first, as they are required for this bibtex entry type.
> > Is it possible with the current elogd version to also sort (rearrange) the 
> > attributes in the entry mask?  If yes, how?  
> 
> Attributes are shown in the order you specify them in the config file, so what about
> 
> Attributes = Entry type, Author, Journal, Title, Year     ???

Because for 'Entry type'='InProceedings' one needs:
'Author', 'Title', 'Booktitle', 'Year', 'Volume', 'Number'.
So, depending on the entry type that was chosen the entry mask should change,
with the required fields first and the not valid fields should not be shown
at all, which can nicely be done with the 'hidden attributes' config option.
Only the sorting (of the entry mask!) is missing! :)

> Only the sorting (of the entry mask!) is missing! :)

Ok, I put that on my wish list. So once the second or third person asks for it, I will
implement it (;-)

> > Have set up 3 top level groups, each with their own password file.
> > Ever since users have to 'login' twice to get to the appropriate elog.
> > You click on top level group, get to log book and click on the one you 
want 
> > and get login/password dialog box, click ok and and you get it again 
and 
> > then you finally get into the elog book.
> > 
> > Anything I can check on this behavior?
> 
> Sorry my late reply, was very busy these days... (;-) Can you send me your
> elogd.cfg so that I can see how you defined your groups?
> 
> - Stefan

OK elogd.cfg is attached.

> I can export the Attributes I define easily and the Subject. Can't seem to 
> export the Entry Date and the Text fields.

The XML export contains both the Entry Date and Text fields. In CSV format,
it's hard to export the Text field since it can span several lines, which would
break the CSV format (one line per entry). Or do you know how multi-line
entries can be encoded in CSV?

> I can export the Attributes I define easily and the Subject. Can't seem to 
> export the Entry Date and the Text fields.

I added at least the date and message ID to the CSV export. New version under CVS.

> If an attribute uses MOptions and is also extendable, clicking "Add 
> <attribute name>" and entering a value adds the value to the MOptions, but 
> does not put the value into the log entry. The log record has that 
> attribute blank.
> You have to go back into the record and edit it to put the new value in.

I fixed that bug just now, thanks for reporting it. It's available in revision
1.535 under CVS.

> I have a logbook with an attribute that has a number of fixed values. I 
> use MOptions to prevent typos when entering and allow multiple "keywords".
> When searching the users can only search on one keyword.
> Is there any way to search on multiple values (AAA|BBB|CCC)? If I do not 
> use MOption, they can do this, but the users entering logs may mistype the 
> keywords.

Even with Moptions, you can put into the "Text:" line

(AAA|BBB|CCC)

and click on "Search text also in attributes". This is a valid regular
expression with searches for AAA or BBB or CCC. Unfortunately you still can
mistype the values. If I would add check boxes in the find page, it would not
be clear if one searches for an "AND" of several values or an "OR" (Most people
would probably think that they want an "AND" because this happens if they
restrict several attributes).