Demo Discussion
Forum Config Examples Contributions Vulnerabilities
  Discussion forum about ELOG, Page 518 of 808  Not logged in ELOG logo
 Find |  Login |  Help 
 Full | Summary | Threaded | Hide attachments  Show only new entries    6459 Entries 
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 517, 518, 519 ... 806, 807, 808   Next  
ID Date Icon Author Author Email Category OS ELOG Versiondown Subject
  65633   Thu Oct 25 20:15:46 2007 Reply Stefan Rittstefan.ritt@psi.chBug reportOther2.6.5:1946Re: Date attribute in Quick filter

Peter Rienstra wrote:
I downloaded the latest source (ELOG V2.6.5-1946) to solve another problem. But now I get:

Error: "Attribute "Date" for quick filter not found", see attachment.

In the configfile I have: Quick filter = Date

A bug?


Yep. Fixed in V2.6.5-1951.
  2246   Tue Jun 19 23:21:52 2007 Cool An Thaithaithan@gmx.deQuestionWindows2.6.5.1863How long should it taken for new entry with attachments?
Hello,

shortly I have a new issue of entry with attachments.
I try to re-produce the problem and find out that elog service needs very long to serve an entry with attachments.

Normally it takes about 3 seconds after the button SUBMIT is clicked to open the confirm page (ca. 20 recipients).

But when an user tries to enter a new entry and attach a file (about 500 Kb or greater) or some files (total of 500 Kb or greater), it takes several minutes and his browser displays "the page can not be opened"
In this time intervall, elog service runs with 100% CPU server recource.

My questions are:

  • is there a form to calculate or estimate how long Elog needs to serve an new entry with attachment? (for example: Summary or multiplication of recipients and large of files) It will help to make a comment to warn users.

  • Could you please make the SUBMIT button disable after clicked? Because it happens that my users click it many times after enter a new entry with big attachments.

Thank in advance and best regards.
  2247   Wed Jun 20 18:20:01 2007 Reply Stefan Rittstefan.ritt@psi.chQuestionWindows2.6.5.1863Re: How long should it taken for new entry with attachments?

An Thai wrote:
I try to re-produce the problem and find out that elog service needs very long to serve an entry with attachments.

Normally it takes about 3 seconds after the button SUBMIT is clicked to open the confirm page (ca. 20 recipients).

But when an user tries to enter a new entry and attach a file (about 500 Kb or greater) or some files (total of 500 Kb or greater), it takes several minutes and his browser displays "the page can not be opened"
In this time intervall, elog service runs with 100% CPU server recource.


This can be related you your email server. Attachments are converted into some ASCII form (base64 encoding), which increases their size by 2-3x. Some email servers are slow in receiving multi-MB data. Can you try to switch off the email attachments in the notification with
Email format = 111

This does not send attachments in email, just their names. If your performance gets much better then, it is related to your email server, and I cannot do anything. So just keep it then turned off.
  2271   Thu Jun 28 17:48:40 2007 Warning toumbitoumbi@yopmail.comBug reportWindows2.6.5.1855icons\elc_anchor.png is missing ?
the file icons\elc_anchor.png is missing I setup the windows version.
  2273   Thu Jun 28 19:36:06 2007 Reply Stefan Rittstefan.ritt@psi.chBug reportWindows2.6.5.1855Re: icons\elc_anchor.png is missing ?

toumbi wrote:
the file icons\elc_anchor.png is missing I setup the windows version.


It's contained in http://midas.psi.ch/elog/download/windows/elog265-2.exe
  2302   Fri Aug 3 15:49:05 2007 Idea Grant Jeffcotegrant@jeffcote.orgQuestionWindows2.6.5-1903Boolean
Stefan,

I've noticed in the latest release when using the 'Find' page that any boolean expression (tick box) is now shown as '0,1 or unspecified'. Is this intentional? My colleagues are finding it hard to get their heads around what to choose and preferred the old 'Tick Box' option. Have there been changes to the configuration arguments used for Boolean that I've missed?

Thanks
  2303   Fri Aug 3 16:00:42 2007 Reply Stefan Rittstefan.ritt@psi.chQuestionWindows2.6.5-1903Re: Boolean

Grant Jeffcote wrote:
I've noticed in the latest release when using the 'Find' page that any boolean expression (tick box) is now shown as '0,1 or unspecified'. Is this intentional? My colleagues are finding it hard to get their heads around what to choose and preferred the old 'Tick Box' option. Have there been changes to the configuration arguments used for Boolean that I've missed?


Well, maybe you didn't realize, but searching for boolean attributes never really worked. If you want to search for entries where a boolean is true (or 1), then you could check the tick box in the past. But if you wanted to search for all entries were an attribute was false (not true) you could not do it, because the system assumed you are not interested in an attribute if the tick box was not checked. With the new way, you could either specify 'unspecified' meaning you are not filtering on this attribute, or you can explicitly specify '0', to look for entries where the attribute is false. The best would be to have a three-state tick box, which can be on/off/grayed. Under Windows API this does exist, but not in HTML. So I had to go with the three radio buttons.

Now one could argue how to name boolean states. There are several options:

  • 0 / 1
  • no / yes
  • false / true
  • off /on

I have chosen the first one, but that's kind of arbitrary. If the community believes that another one is better, I'm willing to change.
  2304   Fri Aug 3 17:03:46 2007 Reply Grant Jeffcotegrant@jeffcote.orgQuestionWindows2.6.5-1903Re: Boolean

Stefan Ritt wrote:

Grant Jeffcote wrote:
I've noticed in the latest release when using the 'Find' page that any boolean expression (tick box) is now shown as '0,1 or unspecified'. Is this intentional? My colleagues are finding it hard to get their heads around what to choose and preferred the old 'Tick Box' option. Have there been changes to the configuration arguments used for Boolean that I've missed?


Well, maybe you didn't realize, but searching for boolean attributes never really worked. If you want to search for entries where a boolean is true (or 1), then you could check the tick box in the past. But if you wanted to search for all entries were an attribute was false (not true) you could not do it, because the system assumed you are not interested in an attribute if the tick box was not checked. With the new way, you could either specify 'unspecified' meaning you are not filtering on this attribute, or you can explicitly specify '0', to look for entries where the attribute is false. The best would be to have a three-state tick box, which can be on/off/grayed. Under Windows API this does exist, but not in HTML. So I had to go with the three radio buttons.

Now one could argue how to name boolean states. There are several options:

  • 0 / 1
  • no / yes
  • false / true
  • off /on

I have chosen the first one, but that's kind of arbitrary. If the community believes that another one is better, I'm willing to change.


Stefan
Thanks for the great explanation.
What are the chances of having a choice of the four options (as mentioned in your list) somehow so that when boolean-x is used (for example) in the configuration file the applicable option text is shown in the 'Find' page?

ie.

boolean-x = 0/1
boolean-y = no / yes
boolean-z = false / true

etc.

A long shot perhaps but don't know until you ask? Wink

Thanks
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 517, 518, 519 ... 806, 807, 808   Next  
ELOG V3.1.5-3fb85fa6