ID |
Date |
Icon |
Author |
Author Email |
Category |
OS |
ELOG Version |
Subject |
992
|
Fri Mar 18 10:41:39 2005 |
| Paul Harrington | paul.harrington@oup.com | Question | Windows | 2.5.2 | Re: can attrinute fields contain more that one line | > > Is there any way to configure elog so that attribute fields can be edited
> > on more than line like the 'text' field?
> >
> > (This would be useful so that attributes could contain larger portions of
> > text including line breaks)
>
> No, but this request is already on the wishlist
> (http://midas.psi.ch/elog/wishlist.html) since some time. I added your vote.
Stefan,
Was just wondering about the status of the multi-line attributes in Elog, are
they implemented in elog yet? If not is that something you are planning to do
in the future?
many thanks
Paul |
994
|
Fri Mar 18 11:06:11 2005 |
| Paul Harrington | paul.harrington@oup.com | Question | Windows | 2.5.2 | Re: can attrinute fields contain more that one line | > > Was just wondering about the status of the multi-line attributes in Elog, are
> > they implemented in elog yet? If not is that something you are planning to do
> > in the future?
>
> In order to have multi-line attributes, the whole format of the logbooks has to be
> changed. I plan to use XML for the logbook format in the future. We would not have
> any more one file per day, but one big file per logbook. I have already some XML
> functionality in elog, but this one requires a major rewrite of the whole code. On
> the other hand, searching etc. will become much faster afterwards. I plan to start
> this development soon, but it might take quite some time, so don't expect it
> before summer or fall.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Stefan
Thanks for your help, thats useful to know.
Paul |
69827
|
Fri Sep 13 12:02:54 2024 |
| Patrick Upson | patrick.upson@dfo-mpo.gc.ca | Question | Windows | 2.9.2 | Looking for version update advice | I've inherited a position that includes deploying elog for an at-sea mission. Once at sea there's no gauntee of internet connection so I have to be sure things are going to work before hand. The machines I currently have (we have several backup machines) are running elog version 2.9.2 and I'm looking for a change log, or feature list to determine if it's safe to update the at-sea laptops to the latest version of elog.
On one hand, I could leave things as they are and I'm sure it will just work, on the other hand, I hate seeing things get out of date to the point that something just stops working some day and there's no ability to get support for old software.
I'm already running elog 3.1.4 on my personal machine I use for configuration development and testing and it seems to work well. The config file is pretty simple and seems to work with 2.9.2 on the at-sea machines, but I don't want to run into any suprises if there ends up being a compatibility issue at sea. |
69836
|
Wed Sep 25 15:02:16 2024 |
| Patrick Upson | patrick.upson@dfo-mpo.gc.ca | Question | Windows | 2.9.2 | Re: Looking for version update advice | I ran a test (using Windows) and you're correct about the subfolder and file naming. I don't think that'll be an issue, but it's good to be aware of. If we end up having to revert to 2.9.2 for whatever reason, I think it sould still work fine if what logs we have are just copied up a directory (i.e /home/logfiles/2023/23mmdda.log ==> /home/logfiles/23mmdda.log)
The difference in the directory structure doesn't matter for my purposes.
David Pilgram wrote: |
I use linux elog, and if you upgrade to v3.x.x, it's difficult to go back to v2.9.x. This is because the log files get grouped in year sub directories at v3.x.x.
In 2.9.x, the logfiles are store as (made up example) /home/logfiles/yymmdda.log
In 3.x.x they are stored as /home/logfiles/2024/24mmdda.log /home/logfiles/2023/23mmdda.log etc. I think I got the labelling of the subdirectories correct, Stefan will no doubt correct if I am wrong.
I assume the same is true for the Windows version as it would be weird for a split in the program by OS for something important but trivial to impliment for all OS.
It's a bore to sort that out if you have to revert to 2.9.x - I know, I've done it - but I don't recall any change in format in the individual yymmdda.log files with an early v3.x.x version I tried. There may be additions to the log files made in much more recent v3.1.x or so versions, but I guess you are ok with whatever they may be as you've checked the change log.
Patrick Upson wrote: |
Thanks. I did eveuntaully find the change log and made the decision to upgrade the at-sea machines. So far the configuration file we update for each mission still works. I have a copy of the 2.9.2 installer that if something catostrophic happens I can remove the new version and take it back, but I don't think it'll be a problem. We archive logbooks at the end of a mission, but each mission basically starts from a fresh install like state anyway.
Stefan Ritt wrote: |
If 3.1.4 runs safely on your laptop, there should be no problem to update the 2.9.2 one. But first do it on a copy of your logbooks from the at-sea. The get converted automatically into a newer format but that should be transparent.
On the other hand you don't really need a new system if your old installation works fine and you don't need any of hte new features.
The changelog ist here: https://elog.psi.ch/elog/download/ChangeLog
Stefan
Patrick Upson wrote: |
I've inherited a position that includes deploying elog for an at-sea mission. Once at sea there's no gauntee of internet connection so I have to be sure things are going to work before hand. The machines I currently have (we have several backup machines) are running elog version 2.9.2 and I'm looking for a change log, or feature list to determine if it's safe to update the at-sea laptops to the latest version of elog.
On one hand, I could leave things as they are and I'm sure it will just work, on the other hand, I hate seeing things get out of date to the point that something just stops working some day and there's no ability to get support for old software.
I'm already running elog 3.1.4 on my personal machine I use for configuration development and testing and it seems to work well. The config file is pretty simple and seems to work with 2.9.2 on the at-sea machines, but I don't want to run into any suprises if there ends up being a compatibility issue at sea.
|
|
|
|
|
68917
|
Fri Mar 22 09:53:39 2019 |
| Patricia Mendez Lorenzo | patricia.mendez@cern.ch | Question | Linux | latest | Interfaced with SSO | Dear Supporters,
I am evaluating the elog software as lobgook for high energy pgysics and I was just wondering the interface with SSO from the login point of view. Once euthenticated with SSO, can this authentication be also recognized by elog?
Thank you so much
Best Regards,
PAtricia |
679
|
Tue Aug 31 20:29:20 2004 |
| Patricio Castro | pato.castro@terra.cl | Question | Linux | 2.5.3 | Options Items limits | Hello friends,
Exist some form to increase limits of items (100) in the Options List
Thanks for any help |
68063
|
Mon Aug 3 22:13:16 2015 |
| John P. Huber | pat@caltech.edu | Request | Linux | latest | Re: dependencies lib | Can you provide simliar guidance for Scientific Linux release 6.6 (Carbon, 64 bit version) as I get the "failed dependencies" after installing
openssl-devel package and I tried linking /usr/lib64/libssl.so.1.0.1e as libssl.so.6 in both /lib and /usr/lib ? -jph
Stefan Ritt wrote: |
If you Google for "libssl.so.6 is needed", you will find for example this site: http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=2096126 , which tells you to install the libssl-dev package.
alireza wrote: |
Hi,I'm new here :) and want to install elog on linux suse. could you please tell me, how can I find this following lib dependency.
linuxsuse#rpm -i elogi386.rpm
error: Failed dependencies:
libssl.so.6 is needed by elog-3.1.0-2.i386
Thanks in Advance
|
|
|
67208
|
Mon Mar 5 16:19:24 2012 |
| Paraic Fahey | paraic.fahey@pfizer.com | Bug report | Windows | 2.7.6 | Record Proliferation | Saving, using Submit sees recently updated fields cleared after hitting SUBMIT.
MOre significantly this then leads to a proliferation of instances of the same record being generated in the logfile and consequently on the logbook.
Has anybody a fix or advice on this? |
|