| Summary: | Animations only "appear". Don't work as described. | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | LibreOffice | Reporter: | Colin Brown <Treehaven2010> |
| Component: | Impress | Assignee: | Not Assigned <libreoffice-bugs> |
| Status: | RESOLVED WORKSFORME | ||
| Severity: | normal | CC: | ilmari.lauhakangas, xiscofauli |
| Priority: | medium | Keywords: | bibisectRequest |
| Version: | 5.1.3.2 release | ||
| Hardware: | x86-64 (AMD64) | ||
| OS: | All | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Crash report or crash signature: | Regression By: | ||
| Attachments: | Presentation showing the bug | ||
Unconfirmed with v5.0.6.3 under mint 17.3 x64. Confirmed with v5.1.4.2 under ubuntu 16.04 x64. Unconfirmed with v5.2.0.1 under ubuntu 16.04 x64. Seems already fixed, but not backported to v5.1. (In reply to Colin Brown from comment #0) > Recently read about the the PR about the 92,000 documents used in automated > testing. However I'm not sure it is very feasible to test automatically for > bugs like the one reported here. As a regular user of Impress, I have run > into a few bugs now, all of which are about failures in the rendering of the > presentation. Is there a weakness in the test procedure relying too much on > automation? I would think there ought to be a test presentation containing > all the effects users might employ, including all the animations, or at > least a reresentative sample. The 92,000 documents are tested for crashes and freezes. I got the same result as MM with 5.1.4 and fresh master 5.3. Closing and adding backport request. Have you identified the fixing commit? Only if so, you should add a backportRequest keyword. (In reply to Adolfo Jayme from comment #3) > Have you identified the fixing commit? Only if so, you should add a > backportRequest keyword. That is a bit different from what we agreed in a QA meeting: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/QA/Bugzilla/Fields/Status/RESOLVED#Fixed_in_a_newer_version |
Created attachment 126172 [details] Presentation showing the bug Seen this on 2 machines, one running 5.1.3.2, the other 5.1.2.4. Had a nice demo of "before" and "after" when I updated a machine which had been running 5.0.6 (I think) to 5.1.4.2. The animations worked fine before updating. A demo file is attached. Recently read about the the PR about the 92,000 documents used in automated testing. However I'm not sure it is very feasible to test automatically for bugs like the one reported here. As a regular user of Impress, I have run into a few bugs now, all of which are about failures in the rendering of the presentation. Is there a weakness in the test procedure relying too much on automation? I would think there ought to be a test presentation containing all the effects users might employ, including all the animations, or at least a reresentative sample.