| Summary: | Conditional formatting breaks after redoing cell deletion | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | LibreOffice | Reporter: | Xisco Faulí <xiscofauli> |
| Component: | Calc | Assignee: | Mike Kaganski <mikekaganski> |
| Status: | RESOLVED FIXED | ||
| Severity: | normal | CC: | aron.budea, erack, mikekaganski, xiscofauli |
| Priority: | medium | Keywords: | bibisected, bisected, regression |
| Version: | 6.1 all versions | ||
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | All | ||
| See Also: |
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=95295 https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=133112 https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=159245 https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=158802 https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=160149 |
||
| Whiteboard: | target:24.8.0 target:24.2.1 | ||
| Crash report or crash signature: | Regression By: | Mike Kaganski | |
| Bug Depends on: | |||
| Bug Blocks: | 87351 | ||
| Attachments: | A simplified document | ||
|
Description
Xisco Faulí
2021-02-11 09:34:27 UTC
Regression introduced by: https://cgit.freedesktop.org/libreoffice/core/commit/?id=3f614f431475e1bf3bb3bbeac59b0681309628b7 author Mike Kaganski <mike.kaganski@collabora.com> 2017-12-01 15:25:56 +0300 committer Eike Rathke <erack@redhat.com> 2017-12-11 23:29:26 +0100 commit 3f614f431475e1bf3bb3bbeac59b0681309628b7 (patch) tree 104fc56d968dd51802b658d97775c02e06424524 parent 7d202623b007979d9d0f93f6cd62c3c031d6d1d4 (diff) tdf#95295: don't add duplicate conditional formats Bisected with: bibisect-linux64-6.1 Adding Cc: to Mike Kaganski @Eike, I thought you might be interested in this issue Dear Xisco Faulí, To make sure we're focusing on the bugs that affect our users today, LibreOffice QA is asking bug reporters and confirmers to retest open, confirmed bugs which have not been touched for over a year. There have been thousands of bug fixes and commits since anyone checked on this bug report. During that time, it's possible that the bug has been fixed, or the details of the problem have changed. We'd really appreciate your help in getting confirmation that the bug is still present. If you have time, please do the following: Test to see if the bug is still present with the latest version of LibreOffice from https://www.libreoffice.org/download/ If the bug is present, please leave a comment that includes the information from Help - About LibreOffice. If the bug is NOT present, please set the bug's Status field to RESOLVED-WORKSFORME and leave a comment that includes the information from Help - About LibreOffice. Please DO NOT Update the version field Reply via email (please reply directly on the bug tracker) Set the bug's Status field to RESOLVED - FIXED (this status has a particular meaning that is not appropriate in this case) If you want to do more to help you can test to see if your issue is a REGRESSION. To do so: 1. Download and install oldest version of LibreOffice (usually 3.3 unless your bug pertains to a feature added after 3.3) from https://downloadarchive.documentfoundation.org/libreoffice/old/ 2. Test your bug 3. Leave a comment with your results. 4a. If the bug was present with 3.3 - set version to 'inherited from OOo'; 4b. If the bug was not present in 3.3 - add 'regression' to keyword Feel free to come ask questions or to say hello in our QA chat: https://web.libera.chat/?settings=#libreoffice-qa Thank you for helping us make LibreOffice even better for everyone! Warm Regards, QA Team MassPing-UntouchedBug Created attachment 191945 [details] A simplified document This is basically just a manifestation of a *previous* issue: open the attachment from this comment ( which is just a simplified attachment 128858 [details], but with the *single* conditional formatting range over A2:B3, as opposed to separate ranges in the older file ) in LO as old as 4.0; and delete row 2. Observe how the conditional formatting range is now broken. Of course, the fact that undo does not restore the true initial status (i.e., it merges the restored ranges, as if they are added anew) is an own bug - let us track it here. But please consider the bug with the attachment that I post here as a separate bug. https://gerrit.libreoffice.org/c/core/+/162084 As said, this only addresses the true regression here. The *old* underlying problem discovered here needs an own report. Mike Kaganski committed a patch related to this issue. It has been pushed to "master": https://git.libreoffice.org/core/commit/96493091a80fb01c33ea9153b737fdc554de61f0 tdf#140330: do not deduplicate conditional formatting in undo context It will be available in 24.8.0. The patch should be included in the daily builds available at https://dev-builds.libreoffice.org/daily/ in the next 24-48 hours. More information about daily builds can be found at: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Testing_Daily_Builds Affected users are encouraged to test the fix and report feedback. Mike Kaganski committed a patch related to this issue. It has been pushed to "libreoffice-24-2": https://git.libreoffice.org/core/commit/e7285c5e520a35d34bce66fd1fe5bcd7771f9978 tdf#140330: do not deduplicate conditional formatting in undo context It will be available in 24.2.1. The patch should be included in the daily builds available at https://dev-builds.libreoffice.org/daily/ in the next 24-48 hours. More information about daily builds can be found at: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Testing_Daily_Builds Affected users are encouraged to test the fix and report feedback. Xisco Fauli committed a patch related to this issue. It has been pushed to "master": https://git.libreoffice.org/core/commit/e4755087cad159f8a3f628789256a4faa90a76bf tdf#140330: sc_uicalc: Add unittest It will be available in 24.8.0. The patch should be included in the daily builds available at https://dev-builds.libreoffice.org/daily/ in the next 24-48 hours. More information about daily builds can be found at: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Testing_Daily_Builds Affected users are encouraged to test the fix and report feedback. (In reply to Mike Kaganski from comment #5) > https://gerrit.libreoffice.org/c/core/+/162084 > > As said, this only addresses the true regression here. The *old* underlying > problem discovered here needs an own report. Done -> bug 159245 |