After updating to current stable version (3.4.12 Madeira at time of writing), when opening a project, the processing log as described in https://docs.qgis.org/3.4/en/docs/training_manual/processing/log.html is not accessible any more through the previously visible "Processing" tab. I would like to access the processing history of a specific project to review it.

This already happened to me when I updated from 3.4.1 to 3.4.2, although I wasn't certain about it back then, because I hadn't paid attention specifically to it, since I didn't expect to lose the processing history.

(I handed in my project with an incomplete history file. Nobody noticed because they didn't run it, but, you know, it's bad and not contributing to reproducible science. For my next project, if I update to a newer version of QGIS, I'd like to be able to provide a full processing history :D )

  • Are you sure that the Processing log is kept for a specific project? I though it as only during the QGIS Desktop session. Can you add a screnshoot about a project having a previous history, what you call "incomplete history file". Thanks
    – etrimaille
    Commented Oct 17, 2019 at 8:09
  • @etrimaille I am not sure at all. In fact, now that you ask about it, I doubt it. I expected it, because it seems weird the log file wouldn't be kept per project, but it seems that's not how it's done, I guess.
    – thymaro
    Commented Oct 17, 2019 at 19:07
  • It's in the plan to add some kind of processing history in the project metadata panel, in the last tabs about "history". But this hasn't been done yet. So for now, except with a plugin that I don't know, the Processing history is just in the current session. So I'm not sure why you talked that you lost the history when migrating QGIS version.
    – etrimaille
    Commented Oct 18, 2019 at 9:24
  • @etrimaille you mean to say that when I close QGIS, the processing history is erased? That doesn't fit with my experience. The processing history of processes executed a few months back was still in the history, but got lost after the update.
    – thymaro
    Commented Oct 19, 2019 at 15:14
  • 1
    @etrimaille Ok, thx, found it. It's at C:\Users\<user>\AppData\Roaming\QGIS\QGIS3\profiles\default\processing. This is the file I was looking for in the question. In ...\profiles`, there is only default` and defaultQuickOSM. Unfortunately, the history file doesn't have any older entries than 2018-10-25, but that's a different story. I didn't make a new profile, but it might have been purged when updating from Bonn to Madeira. I don't recall in detail. Anyways, please add an answer summing up this comment thread so we get an actual answer to the question ;)
    – thymaro
    Commented Oct 21, 2019 at 3:34

2 Answers 2


From the comments we wrote above.

QGIS is only saving the Processing history in the current QGIS profile, so on a single computer, not per project.

  • Open your profile folder with Settings, Profile and Open active profile
  • Go in processing folder.
  • Open processing.log.

So you could get an empty history if:

  • you created a new profile on the same computer
  • you did the processing algorithm on another computer

There is a plan in https://github.com/qgis/QGIS-Enhancement-Proposals/issues/91 about Metadata Management to include this Processing history somehow in Project Properties Metadata History and/or in the equivalent panel in Layer Properties Metadata History

  • I am running a lot of Processing stuff and there is no log file there. Does it need to be activated somewhere? I found no option in the QGIS options. Commented Apr 14, 2023 at 14:56

Not sure with what version processing history was moved, but at least since 3.28, history is loged in user-history.db file. You can find it in user directory:

enter image description here

you can open it in QGIS:

enter image description here

  • thx for the additional (up to date) answer. The original question was about a processing history on a per-project basis. Of course, a workaround could be to create a separate user for each individual project, but that seems cumbersome. Let's hope for the future. Maybe I should mention it at the next user conference and see what the more seasoned professionals have to say about it.
    – thymaro
    Commented Dec 1, 2023 at 10:23

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.