Re: Attach multiple (many!) files at one time, posted by Eric Feng on Tue Apr 6 00:45:10 2010
|
| Stefan Ritt wrote: |
|
| Eric Feng wrote: |
|
Hi,
Is it possible to attach multiple files at one time? Right now I have to attach each individually, click submit, then confirm, then re-select the next file...
This is a pain if one is attaching many files as I often want to do. It would be nice to be able to select groups of files together using Ctrl and/or Shift, and even to attach a whole directory recursively.
I looked through previous threads but did not find this question asked there.
Thanks,
Eric
|
This is a well known problem, but unfortunately it's a limitation of HTML and how web browsers work. If it would be easy to attach whole directories to HTML forms, it would be too easy to steal important files from your computer. So the HTML designers decided that each file hast to be confirmed manually, and that's why you have to click so often. There is no way ELOG could bypass this scheme.
|
Hi Stefan,
Okay thanks for letting me know. That is unfortunate now.
Is there no way also to select multiple files with shift or ctrl? Is there any usable workaround that you can see?
Thanks,
Eric |
attachment filename bug & Makefile issue, posted by A. Martin on Sat May 15 06:01:40 2010 
|
If I upload the file "000000_000000_file.txt", elog will chop the filename to "file.txt." Also, this effects
the file's displayed "Uploaded" time. It shows the file as being uploaded on: "Tue Nov 30 00:00:00 1999"
Note the attachment to this post.
----
Makefile has the line:
# flag for SSL support
USE_SSL = 1
However setting USE_SSL = 0 does not prevent the openssl libraries from being used. Same issue with USE_CRYPT.
You have to comment them out.
Lines 76-85 of Makefile should be replaced with this:
ifdef USE_SSL
ifneq ($(USE_SSL), 0)
CFLAGS += -DHAVE_SSL
LIBS += -lssl
endif
endif
ifdef USE_CRYPT
ifneq ($(USE_CRYPT), 0)
CFLAGS += -DHAVE_CRYPT
LIBS += -lcrypt
endif
endif
Thanks,
amartin |
|
Re: attachment filename bug & Makefile issue, posted by Stefan Ritt on Tue May 18 16:40:15 2010
|
> If I upload the file "000000_000000_file.txt", elog will chop the filename to "file.txt." Also, this effects
> the file's displayed "Uploaded" time. It shows the file as being uploaded on: "Tue Nov 30 00:00:00 1999"
Arghh! Why did you choose such a filename? This is the ELOG internal file format, which is YYMMDD_HHMMSS_name.ext.
For internal reasons (mainly for synchronization) the system checks every file name, and if it contains 6 numbers
followed by a "_" followed by 6 other numbers it thinks it's a valid date/time and uses that. Your time is however
0.0.0000, that's why it gets converted to some date in 1999. Do you absolutely need this functionality? While I can
easily remove the interpretation of the date, it would break the synchronization functionality and I would have to
find some other method to pass the file date/time, which would be quite some work. So if it's not too important for
you, I would like to keep it as it is.
> Makefile has the line:
>
> # flag for SSL support
> USE_SSL = 1
>
> However setting USE_SSL = 0 does not prevent the openssl libraries from being used. Same issue with USE_CRYPT.
> You have to comment them out.
>
> Lines 76-85 of Makefile should be replaced with this:
>
> ifdef USE_SSL
> ifneq ($(USE_SSL), 0)
> CFLAGS += -DHAVE_SSL
> LIBS += -lssl
> endif
> endif
>
> ifdef USE_CRYPT
> ifneq ($(USE_CRYPT), 0)
> CFLAGS += -DHAVE_CRYPT
> LIBS += -lcrypt
> endif
> endif
The original idea was that one outcomments the whole line, like
#USE_SSL = 1
which always worked, but I agree that your solution is more general, so I changed the official Makefile. Thanks for
that. |
|
Re: attachment filename bug & Makefile issue, posted by A. Martin on Thu May 20 04:33:07 2010
|
> > If I upload the file "000000_000000_file.txt", elog will chop the filename to "file.txt." Also, this effects
> > the file's displayed "Uploaded" time. It shows the file as being uploaded on: "Tue Nov 30 00:00:00 1999"
>
> Arghh! Why did you choose such a filename? This is the ELOG internal file format, which is YYMMDD_HHMMSS_name.ext.
> For internal reasons (mainly for synchronization) the system checks every file name, and if it contains 6 numbers
> followed by a "_" followed by 6 other numbers it thinks it's a valid date/time and uses that. Your time is however
> 0.0.0000, that's why it gets converted to some date in 1999. Do you absolutely need this functionality? While I can
> easily remove the interpretation of the date, it would break the synchronization functionality and I would have to
> find some other method to pass the file date/time, which would be quite some work. So if it's not too important for
> you, I would like to keep it as it is.
>
Thank you for your response.
I can certainly use another filename, but I'm curious why elog doesn't convert the filename "000000_000000_file.txt" to
"YYMMDD_HHMMSS_000000_000000_file.txt" when it gets uploaded. All other files are automatically prepended with this
string. Manually renaming the file and then editing the elog entry via text editor seems to fix the file.
thanks,
amartin |
|
Re: alphabetize Quick Filter items?, posted by Dennis Seitz on Thu Jun 3 06:14:50 2010
|
| Stefan Ritt wrote: |
|
| Dennis Seitz wrote: |
|
| Stefan Ritt wrote: |
|
| Dennis Seitz wrote: |
|
Hi Stefan,
I'd like to request a feature: automatic alphabetization of the items in the Quick Filter menus.
We track quite a few detector assemblies, which are produced with non-sequential designations. It would be useful if the Quick Filter list was automatically sorted alphabetically to make it more convenient for folks to find a particular item.
I know people can always search by designation but it would be handy to have this alpha sorting feature. Would it be possible to include that in a future release?
Thanks again for a *very* useful logging system!
Dennis
|
The order of items in a Quick Filter menu is exactly as in the configuration file. Like if you have items
Options Type = C, D, A, B
they are shown like that in the quick filter menu. If you want to sort them, just do the sorting yourself in the configuration file like
Options Type = A, B, C, D
I have not implemented automatic sorting since some people want a different order, like some main topics at top. So by following the order from the configuration file, everybody can be satisfied just by chaning the order in the config file.
- Stefan
|
Yes, I have been manually sorting and resorting. We have extendable attributes and the list keeps growing so I have to resort every so often. I thought perhaps a simple alphanumeric sort as an option would be popular with most users so I thought I'd ask for it. It would really simplify things for me. Users who want to sort manually could do so by disabling the option. It never hurts to ask!
|
Ok, I implemented
Sort attribute options = 1
in the current SVN revision.
|
I've tried adding this statement to my cfg file but the attributes are still unsorted in the QuickFilter menus. Was this implemented in 2.7.7?
Shouldn't an existing configuration file entry like
Options Type = C, D, A, B
be sorted in the QuickFilter menu as A B C D? |
|
Re: alphabetize Quick Filter items?, posted by Stefan Ritt on Tue Jun 8 09:53:09 2010
|
| Dennis Seitz wrote: |
|
| Stefan Ritt wrote: |
|
| Dennis Seitz wrote: |
|
| Stefan Ritt wrote: |
|
| Dennis Seitz wrote: |
|
Hi Stefan,
I'd like to request a feature: automatic alphabetization of the items in the Quick Filter menus.
We track quite a few detector assemblies, which are produced with non-sequential designations. It would be useful if the Quick Filter list was automatically sorted alphabetically to make it more convenient for folks to find a particular item.
I know people can always search by designation but it would be handy to have this alpha sorting feature. Would it be possible to include that in a future release?
Thanks again for a *very* useful logging system!
Dennis
|
The order of items in a Quick Filter menu is exactly as in the configuration file. Like if you have items
Options Type = C, D, A, B
they are shown like that in the quick filter menu. If you want to sort them, just do the sorting yourself in the configuration file like
Options Type = A, B, C, D
I have not implemented automatic sorting since some people want a different order, like some main topics at top. So by following the order from the configuration file, everybody can be satisfied just by chaning the order in the config file.
- Stefan
|
Yes, I have been manually sorting and resorting. We have extendable attributes and the list keeps growing so I have to resort every so often. I thought perhaps a simple alphanumeric sort as an option would be popular with most users so I thought I'd ask for it. It would really simplify things for me. Users who want to sort manually could do so by disabling the option. It never hurts to ask!
|
Ok, I implemented
Sort attribute options = 1
in the current SVN revision.
|
I've tried adding this statement to my cfg file but the attributes are still unsorted in the QuickFilter menus. Was this implemented in 2.7.7?
Shouldn't an existing configuration file entry like
Options Type = C, D, A, B
be sorted in the QuickFilter menu as A B C D?
|
You need revision 2252 or later. So you have to upgrade to 2.7.8. |
inline-code, posted by Yoshio Imai on Tue Jun 8 15:48:06 2010
|
Hi, Stefan!
Sometimes, it is annoying that the [code] -Tag creates a line break, because there are situations where verbatim text inside the regular text flow is desirable (just like here). I would like to request an additional elcode-tag [ilcode] (in-line code) which translates to <code> instead of <pre> .
Cheers
Yoshio |
|
Re: inline-code, posted by Stefan Ritt on Tue Jun 8 16:33:07 2010
|
| Yoshio Imai wrote: | Sometimes, it is annoying that the [code] -Tag creates a line break, because there are situations where verbatim text inside the regular text flow is desirable (just like here). I would like to request an additional elcode-tag [ilcode] (in-line code) which translates to <code> instead of <pre> .
Yoshio |
The [code] tags produce <pre>...</pre> tags for multi-line listings, where several spaces should not be dropped to keep the formatting of some source code for example. I also want it sometimes in a single line, so what I do is to use a [FONT=Courier New] tag, which produces output very similar to <code>, but without line breaks. |
|