| ID |
Date |
Icon |
Author |
Author Email |
Category |
OS |
ELOG Version |
Subject |
|
68671
|
Tue Aug 22 14:26:42 2017 |
 | Stefan Ritt | stefan.ritt@psi.ch | Question | Windows | 3.1.2 | Re: HTML in attribute values |
- As you can see...
- <UL> is possible
| Richard Stamper wrote: |
|
When one has "Allow HTML = 1" to permit HTML in attribute values, is it only a subset of HTML that is rendered?
I find that <br> and <a href="..."> tags are properly rendered, for example, but lists with <ol> and <ul> are not.
|
|
|
68672
|
Tue Aug 22 14:36:46 2017 |
| Richard Stamper | richard.stamper@stfc.ac.uk | Question | Windows | 3.1.2 | Re: HTML in attribute values |
Isn't that list in the message text rather than as an attribute value?
| Stefan Ritt wrote: |
- As you can see...
- <UL> is possible
| Richard Stamper wrote: |
|
When one has "Allow HTML = 1" to permit HTML in attribute values, is it only a subset of HTML that is rendered?
I find that <br> and <a href="..."> tags are properly rendered, for example, but lists with <ol> and <ul> are not.
|
|
|
|
68673
|
Tue Aug 22 14:37:44 2017 |
| Stefan Ritt | stefan.ritt@psi.ch | Question | Windows | 3.1.2 | Re: HTML in attribute values |
Sorry, I misread your question. Only following HTML tags are allowed in attributes:
<a>
<img>
<b>
<i>
<p>
<br>
<hr>
This is for some internal reason. Probably you can mimick <ul> with bullets and <p> tags.
Stefan
| Richard Stamper wrote: |
|
Isn't that list in the message text rather than as an attribute value?
| Stefan Ritt wrote: |
- As you can see...
- <UL> is possible
| Richard Stamper wrote: |
|
When one has "Allow HTML = 1" to permit HTML in attribute values, is it only a subset of HTML that is rendered?
I find that <br> and <a href="..."> tags are properly rendered, for example, but lists with <ol> and <ul> are not.
|
|
|
|
|
68674
|
Tue Aug 22 14:58:09 2017 |
 | Richard Stamper | richard.stamper@stfc.ac.uk | Question | Windows | 3.1.2 | Re: HTML in attribute values |
Exactly the information I was after - thanks! I'll simulate fancier markup as necessary.
| Stefan Ritt wrote: |
|
Sorry, I misread your question. Only following HTML tags are allowed in attributes:
<a>
<img>
<b>
<i>
<p>
<br>
<hr>
This is for some internal reason. Probably you can mimick <ul> with bullets and <p> tags.
Stefan
| Richard Stamper wrote: |
|
Isn't that list in the message text rather than as an attribute value?
| Stefan Ritt wrote: |
- As you can see...
- <UL> is possible
| Richard Stamper wrote: |
|
When one has "Allow HTML = 1" to permit HTML in attribute values, is it only a subset of HTML that is rendered?
I find that <br> and <a href="..."> tags are properly rendered, for example, but lists with <ol> and <ul> are not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
68686
|
Fri Sep 15 00:56:38 2017 |
 | Alan Grant | agrant@winnipeg.ca | Question | Linux | 3.1.2 | Elog System Requirements |
In response to an elog-hang issue I've been having on the Windows platform, I am building a new Unbuntu 14 TLS VM machine to host the identical configuration so that I can more easily debug when the hang happens again. I don't mind beefing up the hardware resources to either eliminiate that as a factor or resolve the problem. I'll have a higher end CPU to deal with 20 to 50 clients doing searches through the data (since the elog configuration currently does not provide a setting to limit how far back it can search with Quick Filters - pretty please add this basic setting!), but the main question I have now is what is a good amount of memory to add to the VM? I suspect even with 30 concurrent searches going CPU power will have more impact than memory in the case of elog. Can someone please confirm my suspicion and also recommend a suitable amount of memory I should install? My data volume is about 25 MB, all textual (no attachmemts), and the number of daily files goes back about 5 years. Any other tips for the build is very welcome. |
|
68687
|
Fri Sep 15 15:16:42 2017 |
| Andreas Luedeke | andreas.luedeke@psi.ch | Question | Linux | 3.1.2 | Re: Elog System Requirements |
Hi Alan,
we run our ELOG server (38 GB Logbook data in about 50 logbooks dating back up to 16 years) on a virtual Linux box.
The memory is important, since ELOG scans through all entries and creates an index at start-up. But we have only about 6% used out of 2GB: ELOG is not very demanding. If you have many and large pictures attached, then "convert" needs a bit of memory to work with.
Since "elogd" is a single task, you will not gain much from many CPUs. File IO is often a limiting factor: we've tried a while to run the logbook data on an AFS directory, and that did not turn out well. A local disk is best, an NFS disk works fine as well (in our case).
Cheers, Andreas
| Alan Grant wrote: |
|
In response to an elog-hang issue I've been having on the Windows platform, I am building a new Unbuntu 14 TLS VM machine to host the identical configuration so that I can more easily debug when the hang happens again. I don't mind beefing up the hardware resources to either eliminiate that as a factor or resolve the problem. I'll have a higher end CPU to deal with 20 to 50 clients doing searches through the data (since the elog configuration currently does not provide a setting to limit how far back it can search with Quick Filters - pretty please add this basic setting!), but the main question I have now is what is a good amount of memory to add to the VM? I suspect even with 30 concurrent searches going CPU power will have more impact than memory in the case of elog. Can someone please confirm my suspicion and also recommend a suitable amount of memory I should install? My data volume is about 25 MB, all textual (no attachmemts), and the number of daily files goes back about 5 years. Any other tips for the build is very welcome.
|
|
|
68717
|
Mon Jan 15 16:46:58 2018 |
 | Alan Grant | agrant@winnipeg.ca | Request | Windows | 3.1.2 | Drop down order |
Can you please make a change to have the Quick Filter ComboBox controls reference the field type for ordering purposes?
For example, if attribute Lot Number is Type Numeric then the ComboBox should be listed in numerical order instead of alphanumeric (eg: 1,2,3,11,21 vs 1,11,2,21,3).
Best Regards. |
|
68718
|
Tue Jan 16 09:30:55 2018 |
| markus | markus.ries@helmholtz-berlin.de | Question | Linux | 3.1.2 | Is there a python3 api to generate logbook entries from python? |
Dear elog community,
I wonder whether there is a python3 api or lib to generate and append entries (and attachments) to the logbook using scripts.
However, so far I did not find anything...
At the moment I am thinking about wrapping the "elog" command line tool.
Is there something usable already out there?
Thanks and regards
Markus |