Holly Bradley : 2012

118.5 m surveyed this year.

Other years:  | 2009 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014

Wallet status | 2009 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014

Table of all trips and surveys aligned by date

DateTripsSurveys
Aug. 4, 2012 204 -> Fat Cat UNKNOWN
Aug. 5, 2012 204 -> Fat Cat UNKNOWN fatcat2 38.5 m
Aug. 6, 2012 Scrotting around at bottom of Fat Cat, now called Cat Flea UNKNOWN fatcat3 40.4 m
-- Climbs off Cat Flap UNKNOWN
Aug. 10, 2012 258 - March of the Penguins 258
Aug. 11, 2012 258 - MotP, Hooray for Boobies - pushing front 258
Aug. 15, 2012 Pushing leads in the north of Tunnocks UNKNOWN innerflapcontinuation 39.6 m
-- Inner Flap - Tunnocks Inner Flap
Aug. 16, 2012 258 - Pitch at 39 steps 258
Aug. 17, 2012 258 - Pitch at 39 steps 258
Aug. 19, 2012 204a - Runnel Stone 204a
Aug. 21, 2012 204 - 161, Runnel Stone area plus partial derig 204
Aug. 22, 2012 258 - Suicidal Vampire 258

Horrible bug here but only when there is more than one survex block per day, or is there ?!

WHat we thought was the bug: e.g. see Wookey 1999 where there are 3 eiscream survex blocks on 5th August. it duplicates the entry but gets it wrong. The length from the first block is displayed twice but there should be 3 rows: eiscream, eiscream2, eiscream3.

The interaction of django database query idioms with django HTML templating language is a bit impenetrable here. I blame Aaron Curtis who was too fond of being clever with the Django templating system instead or writing it in python anyone could understand.
- The template is in troggle/templates/personexpedition.html
- The code is in function personexpedition() which calls get_person_chronology() in troggle/core/views/logbooks.py
- the connection between the two is made in the URL resolver in troggle/urls.py

To be fixed!

What we now know

The eiscream.svx file does indeed record 3 blocks: eiscream, eiscream2 & eiscream3. But (more) careful inspection shows that eiscream2 and eiscream3 are in the year 2000, not in 1999. So they absolutely should not be shown here. So maybe everything is correct after all. (Well, apart from the duplication.)