| ID |
Date |
Icon |
Author |
Author Email |
Category |
OS |
ELOG Version |
Subject |
|
67625
|
Tue Nov 26 08:17:34 2013 |
 | Stefan Ritt | stefan.ritt@psi.ch | Question | Linux | 2.9.2-2455 | Re: Problem with space in name of eLog not seeing %20 and "+" |
| Tom C wrote: |
|
My elog is named "Whatever Elog" so the URL generated is /Whatever+Elog . This works fine but when in the interface certain buttons generate this URL : /Whatever%20Elog ...this URL fails. It seems that elog does not recognize these ( + and %20 ) as the same which I believe they should be as part of HTTP request.
|
Can you be a bit more specific which buttons you mean? The demo logbook https://midas.psi.ch/elogs/Linux+Demo/ has also a space and I cannot see any problem there. |
|
67626
|
Tue Nov 26 11:25:48 2013 |
| David Pilgram | David.Pilgram@epost.org.uk | Question | Linux | 2.9.2-2455 | Re: Problem with space in name of eLog not seeing %20 and "+" |
| Stefan Ritt wrote: |
|
| Tom C wrote: |
|
My elog is named "Whatever Elog" so the URL generated is /Whatever+Elog . This works fine but when in the interface certain buttons generate this URL : /Whatever%20Elog ...this URL fails. It seems that elog does not recognize these ( + and %20 ) as the same which I believe they should be as part of HTTP request.
|
Can you be a bit more specific which buttons you mean? The demo logbook https://midas.psi.ch/elogs/Linux+Demo/ has also a space and I cannot see any problem there.
|
Years ago I had a similar issue, although I cannot remember the exact details now. The consequence is that I don't leave any spaces in the log book names. However, I did find that '&' was fine, and the ampersand and %26 are interchangeable in a logbook page, so one logbook is ECP&SIW, and using ampersand or '%26' work interchangably when making llinks from other logbooks to ECP&SIW (that is elog:ECP&SIW or elog:ECP%26SIW work equally well).. This is not true of elog.cfg, where only the actual character should be used. This may be true for some other urlencoded characters.
It may be of note that %20 and '+' are not the same urlencode and character - %20 is a space, '+' is %2B, and a brief bit of playing around shows that elog is not so tolerant of those characters as it is with & and %26, and I crashed mine several times but I was only playing, nothing serious was lost. |
|
67627
|
Tue Nov 26 11:28:39 2013 |
| David Pilgram | David.Pilgram@epost.org.uk | Question | Linux | 2.9.2-2455 | Re: Problem with space in name of eLog not seeing %20 and "+" |
| David Pilgram wrote: |
|
| Stefan Ritt wrote: |
|
| Tom C wrote: |
|
My elog is named "Whatever Elog" so the URL generated is /Whatever+Elog . This works fine but when in the interface certain buttons generate this URL : /Whatever%20Elog ...this URL fails. It seems that elog does not recognize these ( + and %20 ) as the same which I believe they should be as part of HTTP request.
|
Can you be a bit more specific which buttons you mean? The demo logbook https://midas.psi.ch/elogs/Linux+Demo/ has also a space and I cannot see any problem there.
|
Years ago I had a similar issue, although I cannot remember the exact details now. The consequence is that I don't leave any spaces in the log book names. However, I did find that '&' was fine, and the ampersand and %26 are interchangeable in a logbook page, so one logbook is ECP&SIW, and using ampersand or '%26' work interchangably when making llinks from other logbooks to ECP&SIW (that is elog:ECP&SIW or elog:ECP%26SIW work equally well).. This is not true of elog.cfg, where only the actual character should be used. This may be true for some other urlencoded characters.
It may be of note that %20 and '+' are not the same urlencode and character - %20 is a space, '+' is %2B, and a brief bit of playing around shows that elog is not so tolerant of those characters as it is with & and %26, and I crashed mine several times but I was only playing, nothing serious was lost.
|
Having written the above and posted it, I see the links for ECP&SIW I wrote here don't work the same as in my local logbook. I did check! Result is treat the above posting with caution. Although this is not the first time when something works fine on my local logbook but not here on the Mother of all elogs. Different flavour of linux? |
|
1992
|
Mon Oct 16 16:53:43 2006 |
| Stefan Ritt | stefan.ritt@psi.ch | Question | | | Re: Problem with large entry size |
| Dimitrios Tsirigkas wrote: | | I have posted an entry of approximately a thousand lines (ten thousand words). Posting it took some time, which is logical to a certain degree. However, whenever a user asks for "Full" view of the logbook, the page takes around two minutes to load and the CPU usage on the elog server goes to beyond 90% for all this time. Is this to be expected for an entry of that size or is there something going wrong here? |
The problem lies in the ELCode parsing. When you post an entry in ELCode form, the elogd server has to parse every word to see if it's any of the ELcode tags. This is right now implemented in a kind of poor way, such that it takes very long for long entries. I will work to optimize that. In the meantime, it will help if you post such long entries just in "plain" form.
- Stefan |
|
1993
|
Mon Oct 16 17:18:58 2006 |
| Stefan Ritt | stefan.ritt@psi.ch | Question | | | Re: Problem with large entry size |
I improved the performance by some factor in SVN revision 1733. Can you give it a try and report your speed improvement? Depending on the result, I can probably do even a bit better with some more effort.
- Stefan |
|
1994
|
Mon Oct 16 17:32:58 2006 |
| Dimitrios Tsirigkas | dimitrios.tsirigkas@cern.ch | Question | | | Re: Problem with large entry size |
| Stefan Ritt wrote: | I improved the performance by some factor in SVN revision 1733. Can you give it a try and report your speed improvement? Depending on the result, I can probably do even a bit better with some more effort.
- Stefan |
Dear Stefan,
Thank you for your quick reply. I will install the new version and I will let you know as soon soon as possible.
Best,
Dimitris |
|
2003
|
Tue Oct 17 14:39:29 2006 |
| Dimitrios Tsirigkas | dimitrios.tsirigkas@cern.ch | Question | | | Re: Problem with large entry size |
| Stefan Ritt wrote: |
The problem lies in the ELCode parsing. When you post an entry in ELCode form, the elogd server has to parse every word to see if it's any of the ELcode tags. This is right now implemented in a kind of poor way, such that it takes very long for long entries. I will work to optimize that. In the meantime, it will help if you post such long entries just in "plain" form.
- Stefan |
Hi again,
I was wondering what is the cleanest way of changing old entries already submitted in ELCode into plain text. If I do not include ELCode in the allowed encodings does this apply to already submitted entries as well or will they still be treated as ELCode?
Thanks,
Dimitris |
|
2004
|
Tue Oct 17 14:42:58 2006 |
| Stefan Ritt | stefan.ritt@psi.ch | Question | | | Re: Problem with large entry size |
| Dimitrios Tsirigkas wrote: | | I was wondering what is the cleanest way of changing old entries already submitted in ELCode into plain text. If I do not include ELCode in the allowed encodings does this apply to already submitted entries as well or will they still be treated as ELCode? |
The encoding is stored as an "invisible" attribute in each entry. You can change it in two ways:
1) Select each entry, click "edit", change the encoding with the radio buttons at the bottom and submit it again
2) Go and edit directly the xxxxxxa.log files in your logbook directory. You will see in those files something like
Encoding: ELCode
and you can change it with an editor to
Encoding: plain
Afterwards you have to restart the elogd daemon.
Did you try the new version, would be interesting to see if it's any better... |