At present it seems that the document state referring to the "hidden" cells of a merged cell is kept in memory but is not saved into ODT file. This results in inconsisted and also undesirable behavior.
Observed with "ODF1.2 Extended (Recommended)" format, both Linux and Windows x64 builds.
Steps to Reproduce:
1. Create a custom paragraph style
2. Create a new Table, apply the custom style to the whole document + all table cells
Note: after this "Applied Styles" view will show only the custom style
3. Merge 2 cells with the custom style into one
4. Save the document
Note: after this "Applied Styles" view will stil show only the custom style
5. Edit the merged cell formatting (style or manually)
6. Split the merged cell into 2 original cells
Observe the expected behavior - the "upper" cell retains the formatting and content of the merged cell. "Lower" cell reverts its original formatting (before the merge).
7. Merge different 2 cells with the custom style
8. Save and close the document, open it again in Writer
9. Notice that "Applied Styles" view now shows also "Default Style" despite doing no modification since the save action.
10. Search for "Default Style" via Control-H finds the style as applied to the "hidden" cell
11. Split back the second merged cell
Observe unexpected behavior - the "Upper cell retains the merged cell content and formatting. The "Lower cell(s) formatting is reset to "Default Style".
See steps to reproduce.
A1) The save/open of the document does not silently(!) reset the formatting of the "hidden cells" and stores it in the file.
=> ODF format limitation possibly?
A2) To work around the (hypothetical) ODF limitation, set a policy that when a cell is split, the resultant cells that are "un-hidden" will inhering the style of the merged cell at the time of the split. This is the most desirable actually and is also the user expectation.
=> Should not present any cross-compatibility issues.
C) The in-memory representation is made consistent with the saving behaviour and the formatting is allways reset once a cell is merged.
=> Makes it bit less practical for user, but would make the "merge" action at least consistent across save/open ensuring the user "trusts" the application does not "corrupt" his files.
User Profile Reset: Yes, no effect, tested also on fresh install on Linux x64.
This is very hard to investigate can cause negative view of the user on LO.
It would be nice to have split cells inherit the formatting of the cell being split. That would also increase user productivity.
However, the real issue is inconsistency in how in-memory and on-disk data is handled when working with LO's native document format.
We discovered this bug due to a colleague complaining that someone "corrupted" his document while collaboratively editing it ...
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/58.0.3029.97 Safari/537.36 Vivaldi/1.9.818.49
Confirmed identical behavior in LO 126.96.36.199.
Created attachment 133848 [details]
Example file at step 4
Arch Linux 64-bit, KDE Plasma 5
Build ID: c855400e9686ddd8bcba5691393f839f6f52c966
CPU threads: 8; OS: Linux 4.11; UI render: default; VCL: kde4;
Locale: fi-FI (fi_FI.UTF-8); Calc: group
Built on June 2nd 2017
Created attachment 133849 [details]
Example file at step 8
I reproduce the effect in step 11.
Only styles used, not direct formatting.
- already after step 2 I see Default style in Applied styles filter in the styles list.
- at step 6 there was no reverting of the style, both cells retained the style that was applied to them at step 5
** Please read this message in its entirety before responding **
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 http://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://kiwiirc.com/nextclient/irc.freenode.net/#libreoffice-qa
Thank you for helping us make LibreOffice even better for everyone!