Hi Colin,
I upgraded to 2.7.11. Thanks for all the work you put into it. I appreciate it very much.
I found what I think are a few bugs.
1) I downloaded an LOTW report and imported it into WinLog. I entered the state info (in the "Remarks" field) for a bunch of contacts and then ran the log check robot to update the WAS database. For contacts with a "V" in the QSL IN field, the robot sets both the "Confirmed" and "eConfirmed" fields to "Yes". I think the same thing is true for a "D" in the QSL IN field. I didn't try updating the WAZ database using the log check robot so don't know if the problem occurs there too.
2) After the WAS database is updated, and I click on the "Worked/Not Confirmed" button, the list shows those states worked and not confirmed with a QSL. It doesn't remove the states worked and confirmed with an eQSL.
3) Alaska disappeared off my states database. I had to reenter it manually. That is the only state that I haven't worked, so I don't know if that had anything to do with it. I had a similar problem earlier that I reported to you (Alaska was in the database but the AK abbreviation was missing, as I remember) that I had manually fixed before I updated with 2.7.11.
Thanks again for your work and I look forward to getting future versions.
73,
Dick
K7RB
Richard Burke
eQSL bugs
eQSL bugs
Hi Dick
I was just checking the WAS eConfirmed functions and it appears to be updating correctly.
If there is a "V" in the LOG QSLIN field, it will update (only) the 'eConfirmed' field in the WAS database.
If there is a "BV" in the QSLIN field, (confirmed via QSL AND LoTW), it will update both the 'Confirmed' AND 'eConfirmed' fields in the WAS database.
WAS database - queries
1. When you run the query button "Worked/Not Confirmed" both the
'Confirmed' and 'eConfirmed' fields should ALL show 'NO'
2. When you run the query button "Confirmed" ALL the QSO in the 'Confimed' field should show YES, the 'eConfirmed' field may show either YES or NO.
3. When you run the query button "eConfirmed" ALL the QSO in the 'eConfirmed' field should show YES, the 'Confirmed' field may show either YES or NO.
The Left side State list may show different results with the 'Worked/NotConfirmed' query, take into consideration that the W/NC QSO list will show those QSO's entered in the WAS database that are not confirmed, however as it does not show QSO's confirmed, it is likely that a State has been worked/Confirmed on another band/mode.
BUT if you are saying that in the above three examples that you have different results in the WAS database then all is not well, I guess I should take a look at your WAS database - to see if I can find the problem.
- attach it to an email and send to me if you wish.
73 Colin G0CUZ
Winlog32 Author
I was just checking the WAS eConfirmed functions and it appears to be updating correctly.
If there is a "V" in the LOG QSLIN field, it will update (only) the 'eConfirmed' field in the WAS database.
If there is a "BV" in the QSLIN field, (confirmed via QSL AND LoTW), it will update both the 'Confirmed' AND 'eConfirmed' fields in the WAS database.
WAS database - queries
1. When you run the query button "Worked/Not Confirmed" both the
'Confirmed' and 'eConfirmed' fields should ALL show 'NO'
2. When you run the query button "Confirmed" ALL the QSO in the 'Confimed' field should show YES, the 'eConfirmed' field may show either YES or NO.
3. When you run the query button "eConfirmed" ALL the QSO in the 'eConfirmed' field should show YES, the 'Confirmed' field may show either YES or NO.
The Left side State list may show different results with the 'Worked/NotConfirmed' query, take into consideration that the W/NC QSO list will show those QSO's entered in the WAS database that are not confirmed, however as it does not show QSO's confirmed, it is likely that a State has been worked/Confirmed on another band/mode.
BUT if you are saying that in the above three examples that you have different results in the WAS database then all is not well, I guess I should take a look at your WAS database - to see if I can find the problem.
- attach it to an email and send to me if you wish.
73 Colin G0CUZ
Winlog32 Author
eQSL bugs
Hi Colin,
Thanks for the info. As to my item #2, I understand your explanation and WinLog is working as you described. I expected different results, but the way it works makes sense to me now.
The next time I have some LOTW data to check my #1 comments, I'll see if I still get the same results.
73,
Dick
K7RB
Richard Burke
Thanks for the info. As to my item #2, I understand your explanation and WinLog is working as you described. I expected different results, but the way it works makes sense to me now.
The next time I have some LOTW data to check my #1 comments, I'll see if I still get the same results.
73,
Dick
K7RB
Richard Burke