Demo Discussion
Forum Config Examples Contributions Vulnerabilities
  Discussion forum about ELOG, Page 528 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 ... 527, 528, 529 ... 806, 807, 808   Next  
ID Datedown Icon Author Author Email Category OS ELOG Version Subject
  2308   Mon Aug 27 17:27:41 2007 Question toumbitoumbi@yopmail.comQuestion 2.6.5-1890ELCode how to with URL
Hello there !!

I wonder if it's possible to write an url like this[URL=?CR=CR00000429]CR00000429[/URL] 
in fact it don't work for the moment , because it is redirected tu http:///?CR=CR00000429
is it possible to have url without http://

I have a logbook CR and a type CR and i work now in localhost but i want my elog to be accessible from anywhere.
Im not very clear but I hope you understand.



[TABLE border="1"]
Emplacement|CR|TYPE|Cable trace voix 1|Cable trace voix 2|url|-
MON|CR00002536|Monitoring|x|x|[URL=http://localhost:8080/CR/?CR=CR00002536]CR00002536[/URL]|-
POW1|CR00000429|POWER Ro|x|x|[URL=?CR=CR00000429]CR00000429[/URL]|-
POW2|CR00000430|POWER Ro|x|x|[URL=?CR=CR00000430]CR00000430[/URL]|-

[/TABLE]
  2307   Tue Aug 7 18:39:37 2007 Reply Stefan Rittstefan.ritt@psi.chRequestAll2.6.2-1739Re: Too many logbooks during user registration

Steve Jones wrote:
Stefan, we require registration with elog. We have quite a number of logbooks and when someone requests a login account AND elects to register with all of the logbooks, the resulting URL is apparently too long for browsers to handle when the admins click on the link embedded in the email notification. For example, FireFox (latest ver) appears to truncate the URL *after* submission (the correct URL is there before submission).

My question: Is it possible to limit - or remove - the checkboxes that the user can select during registration? I realize that this is a browser issue but I doubt I can persuade those guys to fix FireFox.

Thanks.


I changed the current SVN version (#1909) to show only the list of logbooks if there are ten or less logbooks, in order not to make the URL too long. On the activation by the administrator, the list of subscribed logbooks appears as previously, but all are unchecked. So it's the task of the administrator to enable subscriptions or not.
  2306   Mon Aug 6 17:43:52 2007 Warning Steve Jonessteve.jones@freescale.comRequestAll2.6.2-1739Too many logbooks during user registration
Stefan, we require registration with elog. We have quite a number of logbooks and when someone requests a login account AND elects to register with all of the logbooks, the resulting URL is apparently too long for browsers to handle when the admins click on the link embedded in the email notification. For example, FireFox (latest ver) appears to truncate the URL *after* submission (the correct URL is there before submission).

My question: Is it possible to limit - or remove - the checkboxes that the user can select during registration? I realize that this is a browser issue but I doubt I can persuade those guys to fix FireFox.

Thanks.
  2305   Fri Aug 3 17:05:56 2007 Reply Stefan Rittstefan.ritt@psi.chQuestionWindows2.6.5-1903Re: Boolean

Grant Jeffcote wrote:
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?


If several people will ask for it, I will put it in.
  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
  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.
  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
  2301   Thu Aug 2 12:24:26 2007 Reply Stefan Rittstefan.ritt@psi.chInfoWindows2.6.5Re: WYSIWYG (What you see is what you get)

An Thai wrote:
I have just found an open source for WYSIWYG text editor named FCKeditor at http://www.fckeditor.net/. It looks great. The download Zip-file for this tool is only 1 MB.


I had a look and it just looks great. I will certainly add support for this editor, but I have to fix a few things, like inserting of images and the preview feature need modifications of FCKeditor. So stay tuned.
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 527, 528, 529 ... 806, 807, 808   Next  
ELOG V3.1.5-3fb85fa6