[Cwo] all missiles have been launched
Chuck-NO5W
no5w at consolidated.net
Sun Aug 14 11:06:31 PDT 2011
1. The application is intended for processing after the log deadline has
passed and any revision logs have replaced earlier versions.
2. The application was developed on the assumption that the logs are
valid Cabrillo. I can add some validity checking to flag logs not
meeting that requirement.
3. Your assumption is correct. The application processes all files in
the specified directory having the specified extension. No problem
creating a list of all the files that were processed. This info is
currently shown in the status window so a hard copy listing would be no
problem. The list of all received calls, sorted alphabetically, is also
no problem.
4. Adding a flag or comment to errant QSOs and leaving the QSO in the
composite log is no problem. In my processing I have always only allowed
QSOs in the composite log for importing into the database that meet the
basic requirements.
I'll make the requested changes and send you something later today or
tomorrow. The only one that will take any time is item 2.
73/Chuck
On 8/14/2011 12:06 PM, Alan Maenchen wrote:
> Chuck,
>
> A couple of questions:
>
> 1. What happens with multiple log files from the same guy? He sends in
> his log, then later sends it in again with some correction.
>
> 2. What happens with a non-Cabrillo log .. or one that is screwed up?
> I can probably play with this and see what happens. On the assumption
> that we will be receiving all logs via email (the web based submission
> is not working at this time), there will be no top level format checking
> of logs.
>
> 3. I presume you look up all files that have the .log extension and
> process them. Can you create a file of calls that were processed? That
> would be useful. Not a big deal, but useful. This needs to be done
> somewhere along the line, as well as a file of ALL received calls from
> all logs sorted alphabetically (we'll cull that list for busted calls
> manually).
>
> 4. The separation of obviously bad QSOs is good. However, I'm not sure
> how useful it will be. I think it might be more useful to add a flag to
> the QSO in the log extraction file (P1, P2, P3) like this:
>
> QSO: 80 CW 2011-08-21 0005 K5MPO 22 AL N3JT 79 JIM ERROR: INVALID TIME
>
>
> That way the log stays intact and further processing can key on that
> flag for scoring.
> Further processing can then add similar flags for bad NR, bad NAME, NIL,
> etc.
>
> 73, Alan AD6E
>
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 7:44 PM, Chuck-NO5W <no5w at consolidated.net
> <mailto:no5w at consolidated.net>> wrote
>
> Alan --
>
> Here's a link to a little application I wrote for front end batch
> processing of CWOpen logs. It will process all of the logs in a given
> directory splitting out the header info, and the QSOs into separate
> files suitable for then importing into a database. It also writes any
> erroneous QSOs (out of band, out of period, incomplete data) to a
> separate file for review. Soapbox comments are also split out into a
> single text file suitable for importing into a word processor. The
> source logs can contain QSOs from all periods or just a single period.
> I've included a good bit of flexibility but the defaults are for CWOpen.
>
> You can download the application from
>
> http://www.no5w.com/Documents/LogAssembler-081211.zip
>
> The zip file contains the following
> 1. The application exe
> 2. A restart (rst) file
> 3. Three test logs
>
> Initially the restart file will start you out with CWOpen defaults
> except you will need to specify various output file names, directories,
> etc. Once you specify them the application will restart with those
> specifications on future restarts.
>
> After unzipping the download file you should
>
> 1. Copy the exe and the rst to the directory where you want to run from
> 2. Copy the log files to a directory
> 3. Start up the application, set up directory and file names, etc
> 4. Click the Process button and then review results
>
> The application should be portable and run without any additional DLLs
> but if you get a complaint that it needs one let me know. I've tested it
> a good bit on the CWOpen defaults but if you encounter any bugs let me
> know that also.
>
> My understanding of how this would fit into CWOpen log processing is
> that logs would be either downloaded from Bruce's web server and/or
> saved from email attachments and stored in a directory on a local PC.
> The LogAssembler would then be run against that directory to create the
> following
>
> 1. Header File listing each of the entrants and ready for import into a
> "players" table in a database.
> 2. QSO Log File listing each of the QSOs in the CWOpen in a format
> suitable for importing into a QSOs table in the database.
>
> Of course the above two files will be simple text files so other uses
> can also be made of them.
>
> 73/Chuck/NO5W
>
>
>
> On 8/11/2011 8:04 PM, Alan Maenchen wrote:
> > That's great Rob!
> >
> > The only remaining issues now are the Web based log submission
> stuff and
> > some form of log checking. I'm pessimistic about Bruce getting
> the log
> > submission function working. Don wants to wait until he returns
> from a
> > biz trip early next week before we put up a BIG note about what to do
> > with your logs. I'm 98% sure that we'll do "Plan B" which is to have
> > everyone email their logs to cwo at cwops.org <mailto:cwo at cwops.org>
> <mailto:cwo at cwops.org <mailto:cwo at cwops.org>>
> >
> > I think I know what I'll be doing on my vacation to NC in early
> Sept. ;-)
> >
> > 73, Alan AD6E
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 5:14 PM, Rob <k6rb at baymoon.com
> <mailto:k6rb at baymoon.com>
> > <mailto:k6rb at baymoon.com <mailto:k6rb at baymoon.com>>> wrote:
> >
> > As of early this morning, all the publicity efforts are in play -
> > individual invitations to anchor stations; individual
> invitations to
> > a large list of familiar contesters; post to reflector asking
> > members of other clubs to post to those club reflectors.
> > Now, we hold our collective breaths until Aug 20 at 1200Z! By the
> > way, a disproportionate number of invitations went out to JA
> > stations in order to increase the odds that the first session
> > (1200Z) will be alive with JAs on 40 m and 80 m.
> > I'm not worried about the 2000Z session because there will be
> a big
> > swell of NA stations going full blast.
> > The 0400Z session could be a winner for JAs working 20 m and
> beaming
> > to EU. It could also be bountiful for NA stations working 40
> m and
> > pointing toward EU.
> > Now, it's wait and see.
> > Rob K6RB
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Cwo mailing list
> > Cwo at kkn.net <mailto:Cwo at kkn.net> <mailto:Cwo at kkn.net
> <mailto:Cwo at kkn.net>>
> > http://www.kkn.net/mailman/listinfo/cwo
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Cwo mailing list
> > Cwo at kkn.net <mailto:Cwo at kkn.net>
> > http://www.kkn.net/mailman/listinfo/cwo
>
> _______________________________________________
> Cwo mailing list
> Cwo at kkn.net <mailto:Cwo at kkn.net>
> http://www.kkn.net/mailman/listinfo/cwo
>
>
More information about the Cwo
mailing list