BT 1.05

[fred]

BTW, the red "delete notice" icon is prefixed with blue underscore (which both belong to the same delete link): "_{_}[x]". Is the tiny underscore necessary there?

This: <FONT COLOR="#ffffff"__InsertNoticeDelete__</FONT> hides it, but I still don't know why.

[Pepo]

And I borrowed some of your ideas....

Glad to hear it

[Pepo]

Notices are not correctly being sorted (time-wise) - IIRC blocks of incoming notices should be sorted according to their "TimeArrival", notices in each block according to their "TimeCreated". Yet I see notice blocks from mixed dates/times in this order: 6.6. 11:49, 2.6. 15:05, 30.5. 15:05, 8.6. 20:55, 21.5. 07:56, 19.5. 16:40, 19.5.11 12:38, 8.6. 20:55, 15.5. 16:39, 12.5. 11:34, 8.6. 11:51, 8.6. 07:07, 6.6. 18:17, 6.6. 11:49, 8.6. 20:55. In the older versions I've never noticed the blocks being incorrectly sorted.
Among the blocks of grouped notices, notices are correctly sorted according to their creation times.

Add: BoincTasks new version in Notices.

I've got a BT 1.05 notification ( ):

[-] 09.06.11 20:12
Oznam od BoincTasks
T�to verzia: 1.05
N�jden� nov� beta verzia BoincTasks: 1.06. Stiahnu� z n��ho servera, umiestnen�ho v: Eur�pe, Severnej Amerike
(??) viac...

but its "TimeArrival" is "??" and "TimeCreated" is continuously being updated with the wall-clock time - I'd expect them to display the time-stamp, when my BT noticed it for the first time and another time stamp, when eFMer, Inc. anounced it?

But the most important problem is probably an incorrect code page for just this notice's text.

[fred]

Notices are not correctly being sorted (time-wise) - IIRC blocks of incoming notices should be sorted according to their "TimeArrival", notices in each block according to their "TimeCreated". Yet I see notice blocks from mixed dates/times in this order: 6.6. 11:49, 2.6. 15:05, 30.5. 15:05, 8.6. 20:55, 21.5. 07:56, 19.5. 16:40, 19.5.11 12:38, 8.6. 20:55, 15.5. 16:39, 12.5. 11:34, 8.6. 11:51, 8.6. 07:07, 6.6. 18:17, 6.6. 11:49, 8.6. 20:55. In the older versions I've never noticed the blocks being incorrectly sorted.
Among the blocks of grouped notices, notices are correctly sorted according to their creation times.

Is the sorting correct in the BOINC Manager?
I didn't change any sorting, the list is straight from the Client.

[Pepo]

Notices are not correctly being sorted (time-wise) - IIRC blocks of incoming notices should be sorted according to their "TimeArrival"...

Is the sorting correct in the BOINC Manager?
I didn't change any sorting, the list is straight from the Client.

I'm now behind a machine, which BT 1.05 displays Notices with the default template (no arrival time displayed). It displays 8 notices received from the client, with their creation times, sorted 28.5. 27.5. 25.5. 16.5. 26.5. (all 5 from SETI), 8.6. (BOINC test project), 10.6. 8.6. (from the client - can not recognize host address in remote_hosts.cfg).
B.Manager 6.12.28 displays these messages (mostly) in correct order, but one "can not recognize host address in remote_hosts.cfg" from 8.6. is placed at the end... But the orders definitely do differ.

On a third machine (with BT 1.04), 8 other notices are sorted equally in both BT and B.Manager  6.12.28.


BTW, when BT is connected to 2 machines, wasn't it supposed to display notices from both of them?

[fred]

BTW, when BT is connected to 2 machines, wasn't it supposed to display notices from both of them?

Everything will be corrected in 1.07.

[Pepo]

I've got a BT 1.05 notification ( ):

[-] 09.06.11 20:12
Oznam od BoincTasks
T�to verzia: 1.05
N�jden� nov� beta verzia BoincTasks: 1.06. Stiahnu� z n��ho servera, umiestnen�ho v: Eur�pe, Severnej Amerike
(??) viac...

but its [...] "TimeCreated" is continuously being updated with the wall-clock time [...]

As I've not yet updated to 1.06, my Notices still remind me on a new BT version (now from 14.6.2011 11:33, but this already is known ). But I was surprised that the "new version" was still 1.06 even after successfully checking for a new version in the "New version check" dialog, which confirmed, that the newest beta is 1.07. I think that the notice should have been replaced too.

[fred]

As I've not yet updated to 1.06, my Notices still remind me on a new BT version (now from 14.6.2011 11:33, but this already is known ). But I was surprised that the "new version" was still 1.06 even after successfully checking for a new version in the "New version check" dialog, which confirmed, that the newest beta is 1.07. I think that the notice should have been replaced too.

At least you know there is a new version.

[fred]

should have been replaced too.

The version check is done every 12 hours.

[Pepo]

should have been replaced too.

The version check is done every 12 hours.

The automatic one, sure.
But should (or could) a manual one trigger the notice too?

[fred]

The automatic one, sure.
But should (or could) a manual one trigger the notice too?

But a notice is something you should see and you already did saw that one.

[Pepo]

The automatic one, sure.
But should (or could) a manual one trigger the notice too?

But a notice is something you should see and you already did saw that one.

Well, if I would like to be consequent, then a) I've not yet seen a notice for 1.07, just 1.06, and b) if seeing it in the check dialog would be a reason to not display a 1.07 notice anymore, then why is a 1.06 notice still visible?

IMO: If any version notice is in the Notices area and a newer version gets available, the notice should be replaced, even with the 12 hours delay (imagine, a "new TTh version" notice from all connected machines, until all are get up-to-date), and such notice(s) should be kept until a) the application gets updated, or b) the single notice(s) is/are manually deleted.