Cumulus Support

AllyCat wrote:Do you regret starting this thread yet?

Getting close

what about "Yesterday's Windrun"? However, I can't suggest where you'd squeeze it in on the display (and one of my regular uses of Cumulus is on a 1080 x 600 Netbook, so I certainly wouldn't want to the see the layout compromised).

It already stores this, so it's just a case of working out where to display it. There's an explanatory 'hint' on the figure for today; I could change that to show yesterday's figure instead?

gemini06720 wrote:in one of the numerous non-standard time formats used by Cumulus...

All of the date/time web tags have 'format' parameters, so you can have them in any format you desire.

steve wrote:

gemini06720 wrote:in one of the numerous non-standard time formats used by Cumulus...

All of the date/time web tags have 'format' parameters, so you can have them in any format you desire.

Steve, that might be true but that involve modifying all the Cumulus standard webtags to produce the 'internationally accepted standard' Unix time stamp format - I have been doing that with many of the webtags but I am certainly not going to do that will all the webtags (too many different formats requiring too many functions) - if webtags are not converted into the Unix time stamp format (in the file containing al of the webtags) then the webtags are converted 'on the fly' whenever or wherever they are needed in a script...

Steve, we have already discussed the use of non-standard date format in the past and you made your point about 'user friendliness'.

water01 wrote:

Tonky wrote:I don't know what a 'small and simple chance ' is, so I'm not asking for anything....

That's because it is a "small and simple CHANGE"!!

I’m sorry my English isn’t so good as your Dutch...

steve wrote:

Tonky wrote:I don't know what a 'small and simple chance ' is, so I'm not asking for anything....

I realise that it's not always obvious, and I did hesitate before asking. It doesn't include anything which changes the way Cumulus works, or new facilities (new graphs, or new highs and lows, for example). I'm talking about simple additions that I can do in half a dozen lines of code that don't change anything that already exists in Cumulus. You can always ask and I can say no. I'm trying hard not to at some of the suggestions so far

Well I was thinking about graphs for extra sensors.....but I see now it’s too much.

Tonky wrote:

water01 wrote:

Tonky wrote:I don't know what a 'small and simple chance ' is, so I'm not asking for anything....

That's because it is a "small and simple CHANGE"!!

I’m sorry my English isn’t so good as your Dutch...

True, very true!!

Steve,
As noted above in an edited post, with the assistance of Ray, the standard wxastronomy.php has been updated and is now error free and working as it should.

So the need for these extra tags is removed for the Saratoga style PHP scripts. So, it is over to you as to whether or not you add them as they may be of use to others.

Thanks

gemini06720 wrote: ...that might be true but that involve modifying all the Cumulus standard webtags to produce the 'internationally accepted standard' Unix time stamp format

Ray, out of curiosity how is that 'internationally accepted standard time stamp' format displayed? ddmmyyyy or mmddyyyy.?

Dates is one thing that drives me mad with SQL as the US format always has to be supplied irrespective of the date format of the country. I appreciate this is outside of this discussion but I'm curious about the format.

RayProudfoot wrote:Ray, out of curiosity how is that 'internationally accepted standard time stamp' format displayed? ddmmyyyy or mmddyyyy.?

I have no idea what this standard 'Unix' time stamp format is (I can't find any references to such a standard), but the ISO date format has the components in the order year, then month, then day, to avoid ambiguity. But even that standard allows for various ways of representing the date, within that ordering scheme. But if you're going to have a long and annoying discussion about this, I've had it all before, and this thread is not a suitable place for it, so please take it elsewhere.

My enhancement request is in fact a reminder of #208 that I entered some time ago: new tags for highest and lowest daily average temperatures (as usual in the shape of alltime, current year and current month values). I hope this is not too complicated so that it can be considered for inclusion in this final build, but thanks in any case.

Armand

steve wrote:There's an explanatory 'hint' on the figure for today; I could change that to show yesterday's [Windrun] figure instead?

Hi Steve,

I've just noticed a '?' at the end of that line so perhaps you wanted an answer?

Personally, I have a slight dislike of "mouseovers" simply because I rarely know that they're there! Perhaps an "adult" thing, kids seem to manage fine.

But in this case perhaps an excellent compromise (I'd certainly pefer to have it than not).

Thanks, Alan.

steve wrote:

RayProudfoot wrote:Ray, out of curiosity how is that 'internationally accepted standard time stamp' format displayed? ddmmyyyy or mmddyyyy.?

I have no idea what this standard 'Unix' time stamp format is (I can't find any references to such a standard), but the ISO date format has the components in the order year, then month, then day, to avoid ambiguity. But even that standard allows for various ways of representing the date, within that ordering scheme. But if you're going to have a long and annoying discussion about this, I've had it all before, and this thread is not a suitable place for it, so please take it elsewhere.

Thanks for the info Steve and just to reassure you I wasn't intending to have either a long or annoying discussion about the date format. I was just curious about how it was presented.

AllyCat wrote:Personally, I have a slight dislike of "mouseovers" simply because I rarely know that they're there!

Yes, I know what you mean. They're just an easy way of cramming more data in. It's not really what they're intended for, IMO.

But in this case perhaps an excellent compromise (I'd certainly prefer to have it than not).

OK, I'll go for it.

RayProudfoot wrote:just to reassure you I wasn't intending to have either a long or annoying discussion about the date format

Yes, I realise that - sorry.

steve wrote:

RayProudfoot wrote:just to reassure you I wasn't intending to have either a long or annoying discussion about the date format

Yes, I realise that - sorry.

Thanks. No harm done.