Demo Discussion
Forum Config Examples Contributions Vulnerabilities
  Discussion forum about ELOG, Page 234 of 796  Not logged in ELOG logo
New entries since:Thu Jan 1 01:00:00 1970
ID Date Icon Author Author Email Categoryup OS ELOG Version Subject
  67922   Wed May 20 18:46:27 2015 Reply Andreas Luedekeandreas.luedeke@psi.chCommentAll3.1.0Re: elogd moves elog entries
> Stefan told me that the change was because some users were having thousands of yymmdda.log files
> in the logbook directories, and that sorting them into subdirectories by year at least did something to bring some 
> order.  Possibly to get around the lazy archivers, I suspect.

I'm actually the culprit, who did ask for it.

If you want to know the full story, here it is:
We have our logbook data of our accelerator operation logbooks on AFS (Andrew File System). 
And apparently AFS has a bloody stupid, hard coded limit: 
the total length of all file names in one directory cannot exceed 64k.
Our operation logbooks go back for more than a decade and do contain many, many, many attachment files.
One day - very unexpectedly - we did hit that limit. 
Removing temporary files (generated picture thumbnails) bought us time, and Stefan was nice enough to upgrade ELOG swiftly for us: a big "Thank You" to Stefan!
  67923   Wed May 20 19:05:43 2015 Reply David PilgramDavid.Pilgram@epost.org.ukCommentAll3.1.0Re: elogd moves elog entries
> > Stefan told me that the change was because some users were having thousands of yymmdda.log files
> > in the logbook directories, and that sorting them into subdirectories by year at least did something to
bring some 
> > order.  Possibly to get around the lazy archivers, I suspect.
> 
> I'm actually the culprit, who did ask for it.
> 
> If you want to know the full story, here it is:
> We have our logbook data of our accelerator operation logbooks on AFS (Andrew File System). 
> And apparently AFS has a bloody stupid, hard coded limit: 
> the total length of all file names in one directory cannot exceed 64k.
> Our operation logbooks go back for more than a decade and do contain many, many, many attachment files.
> One day - very unexpectedly - we did hit that limit. 
> Removing temporary files (generated picture thumbnails) bought us time, and Stefan was nice enough to upgrade
ELOG swiftly for us: a big "Thank You" to Stefan!


Hi Andreas,

I had no intention of causing any offence with my lazy archiving comment - hope I didn't, sorry if I did.  Just
that sometimes I've hit some limit or other, and
entirely due to my lazy archiving - I only get around to do it when I have to, usually when I've hit a limit, or
some other problem (broken links and orphaned
threads being common ones).   

Personally, I would have found it useful to put the attachments into a separate directory - or at least to allow
the possibility.  Elog as it stands sometimes
can, and sometimes cannot cope with that functionality - and even to try means messing around directly with the
yymmdda.log files.  For me it would have saved me
having duplicates of the same large attachment in two or three different logbooks, if I could always reference
the same Master copy of the attachment.  This was
at the time I was severely memory constrained, and in part forced me to change how I had operated elog, so for
me that need isn't as great as it once was.

David.
  67927   Thu May 21 10:59:07 2015 Reply Andreas Luedekeandreas.luedeke@psi.chCommentAll3.1.0Re: elogd moves elog entries
I had no intention of causing any offence with my lazy archiving comment - hope I didn't, sorry if I did.
No offence taken :-)
Personally, I would have found it useful to put the attachments into a separate directory - or at least to allow
the possibility. Elog as it stands sometimes can, and sometimes cannot cope with that functionality - and even to try means messing around directly with the
yymmdda.log files. For me it would have saved me having duplicates of the same large attachment in two or three different logbooks, if I could always reference
the same Master copy of the attachment. This was at the time I was severely memory constrained, and in part forced me to change how I had operated elog, so for
me that need isn't as great as it once was.
David.

You can put a reference to the attachment of the other entry in your logbook: elog:67896/1

Or, if it is an image, you can just include it in your new entry like I did below.
Of course this only works if the other logbook is accessible on-line.
But how would you manage access rights to a common attachment folder?
Probably I just did not understand your idea.
 
Cheers
Andreas
 
elog 67896/1
  67955   Fri Jun 5 12:28:21 2015 Entry David PilgramDavid.Pilgram@epost.org.ukCommentLinuxELOG V3.1.0-ac7Emails generated by Elog

I am one who received an email every time there is a new entry in this forum.

I have just noticed that since May 20, every email contains the message "An old ELOG entry has been updated: "

whereas before that date, the vast majority say "A new ELOG entry has been submitted: "

Is this something to do with the saving of draft messages?

Talking of which, I see my draft of this message shows up in the forum before I have submitted it.

  67956   Fri Jun 5 12:34:32 2015 Reply Stefan Rittstefan.ritt@psi.chCommentLinuxELOG V3.1.0-ac7Re: Emails generated by Elog

I acknowledge these two bugs and will fix them soon.

David Pilgram wrote:

I am one who received an email every time there is a new entry in this forum.

I have just noticed that since May 20, every email contains the message "An old ELOG entry has been updated: "

whereas before that date, the vast majority say "A new ELOG entry has been submitted: "

Is this something to do with the saving of draft messages?

Talking of which, I see my draft of this message shows up in the forum before I have submitted it.

 

  67969   Tue Jun 9 12:11:19 2015 Reply Stefan Rittstefan.ritt@psi.chCommentLinuxELOG V3.1.0-ac7Re: Emails generated by Elog

I fixed both issues in the current GIT version. Please double check it.

Stefan Ritt wrote:

I acknowledge these two bugs and will fix them soon.

David Pilgram wrote:

I am one who received an email every time there is a new entry in this forum.

I have just noticed that since May 20, every email contains the message "An old ELOG entry has been updated: "

whereas before that date, the vast majority say "A new ELOG entry has been submitted: "

Is this something to do with the saving of draft messages?

Talking of which, I see my draft of this message shows up in the forum before I have submitted it.

 

 

  67981   Tue Jun 9 16:57:06 2015 Reply Stefan Rittstefan.ritt@psi.chCommentAll3.1.0Re: Documentation of the webserver authentication

Also this made it now to the docs. Thanks.

Christof Hanke wrote:

Hi Stefan,

here is a draft of how you could describe the webserver authentication in your docs.

T/Christof

 

  68601   Wed Apr 12 13:52:34 2017 Idea Francois CloutierFrancois@fcmail.caCommentWindows3.1.2-7933898Re: rename menu commands

Somehow, I've missed to see that option :)

Thanks :)

Andreas Luedeke wrote:

Hm, maybe my question is silly, but why don't you just use the "Duplicate" command instead of renaming and misusing "Copy to"??

Here is the relevant excerpt from the documentation (https://midas.psi.ch/elog/config.html#general):

Menu commands = <list>
This option specifies the menu commands displayed on top of a single logbook page. For certain installations, it can be useful to disable some commands. Following commands are possible:

  • New - Enter new logbook entry
  • Edit - Edit current logbook entry
  • Delete - Delete current logbook entry
  • Reply - Submit a reply to current entry
  • Duplicate - Duplicate the current entry with the possibility to change some values
  • [...]
  • Copy to - Copy entry to other logbook
  • [...]

The commands are always in English, independent of the language = ... setting, and are automatically translated into the specified language.
If this option is not present, following default is used:

Menu commands = List, New, Edit, Delete, Reply, Duplicate, Find, Config, Help
Francois Cloutier wrote:

Hi !

I do have an setup were I would like to rename the menu command but keeping their fonction. Namely, I would like to rename the "copy to" button to "Duplicate" since thats the option I would like to put in place ( Copy to = Same logbook only).

I tried to do so with css but it is not possible since the button doesn't have a specific id... Would you have another solution ? 

Thanks for your help !

 

 

ELOG V3.1.5-2eba886