Is it possible to include an option in the next release to have the Options list reference a text file of attributes rather than explicity listing the attributes in the Config file directly?

This would make it much easier to maintain a particular list that is referenced in several log books.

I can put it on the wish list.

Hi,

sorry for bugging you with this, but I could not find any information for making migration of elog system from one server to another.
The migration should be done from one server version (CentOS 6.10 to CentOS 7.6). Also we are talking about migration from one subdomain to another. Example subdomain1.example.com to subdomain2.example.com. Old elog application version is 3.1.2 and I would like to migrate to the latest version 3.1.4 

Is the migration from one system to another possible?  What are the prerequisites for migration?
Are there any instructions how to do it?

Thank you in advance and have yourself a lovely day,
Warmest regards
 

To move an elog instance, just stop the old server, move the configuration file elogd.cfg and the logbook directory to the new server, and start the new server. If the URL of the server changes, you have to adjust it in elogd.cfg. 

Stefan

Just my two cent - I would have many very good applications for that feature:

• Keep option lists identical over different logbooks.
• Keep option lists identical over different applications.
• Create option lists from a database - that allows to use the options in many applications and in the database; e.g. a list of systems with a failure database, but failure reports in the regular ELOG.
• Export extendable option lists to other applications:
  • Inform administrator about options that have been newly added to a logbook for a review.
  • Provide option lists as menu buttons in these applications.
  • Prevent other applications to submit elog entries with illegal option choices.
• Import extendable option lists from other applications (at least after next elogd restart, if no "update option list" URL/command is provided for elogd).

We recently went through the process of renaming a "system list" in several logbooks, to make it consistent over several facilities. If the "on-call service" is called "radio frequency", but the "system" is called "RF", then searching the logbook can become difficult. It was painful: half a dozen applications had to be adapted at the same time the lists were updated, because they had features to create a failure report to ELOG - assuming specific "system" names.

So I'm in favour of putting that high up in the wishlist :-)

May I slip my vote in for this, especially if it would allow more than 100 attributes (the default, and I do know how to increase it).

I even considered cutting that into two groups,. the first being words like "New", "Re-" and the second being actions.  Clunkey and binned.

I know you can restrict access to logbooks on per user basis but can anyone tell me if it is possible to HIDE certain logbook tabs/groups on per user basis (ie, so they would just see logbooks they are authorized to see)?

According to the doc on the setting "Last default = <n>" it is intended to restrict Quick Filter searches to the last (n) days of entries, however when I add "Last default = 28" to config it still returns entries far older then 28 days when using the filter search. Am I misunderstanding, or implementing it wrong? We must restrict searches through QF to reduce load.

A couple other side questions which are related:

The doc on this setting says: "Last default = <n>
Some logbooks are very big ans searching through all entries with quick filter can be time consuming. This option sets a default value for the Date quick filter, so that by default only the <n> days are displayed." ...... I'm assuming that by saying "only the <n> days are displayed" that it has actually only searched <n> days ................ vs seaching ALL the logbooks but only displaying <n> days. Please confirm.

Also, why wouldn't the "28" days spec display in the Select Period box beside the Quick Filters? Otherwise it appears to me to be a separate and conflicting item. Best regards!