Footnote number fields inserted in a table heading are not displayed in the subsequent reiterations of the table heading for tables that stretch over more than one page and that have their heading repeated on each new page.
Steps to Reproduce:
User Profile Reset: No
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:53.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/53.0
Hello Daniel Grigoras,
Thank you for reporting the bug. Please attach a sample document, as this makes it easier for us to verify the bug.
I have set the bug's status to 'NEEDINFO'. Please change it back to 'UNCONFIRMED' once the requested document is provided.
(Please note that the attachment will be public, remove any sensitive information before attaching it.
See https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/QA/FAQ#How_can_I_eliminate_confidential_data_from_a_sample_document.3F for help on how to do so.)
Created attachment 134338 [details]
Sample document demonstrating the footnote number table heading issue
I can't confirm it. I tried to reproduce it with LO 22.214.171.124:
1. Open a new document
2. Insert a table with a heading and 50 rows
3. Type a text of the heading => text appears also on the second side.
4. Insert a footnote to the heading => footnote only appears on the first side.
I did a second try:
1. Open a new document
2. Insert a table with a heading 20 rows
3. Insert a text to the heading
4. Insert a footnot to the heading
5. Add some rows => heading appears also on the second side but again without a footnote.
I can't assess whether this is also a bug, but it is a different different from the behaviour described in this bug report.
(In reply to Dieter Praas from comment #3)
Not sure why you had to produce a new document when I had attached a sample.
Anyway, I'll attach a screenshot with this issue using LibreOffice 126.96.36.199.
Created attachment 134444 [details]
Screenshot demonstrating footnote number table heading issue
(In reply to Daniel Grigoras from comment #4)
> (In reply to Dieter Praas from comment #3)
> Not sure why you had to produce a new document when I had attached a sample.
> Anyway, I'll attach a screenshot with this issue using LibreOffice 188.8.131.52.
I'm sorry. I've opened your document, but I thought, there was a footnote number in the heading and the problem was, that the footnote itself wasn't displayed. Sorry for the confusion.
So I can confirm the behaviour you describe, but I'm still not sure that this is a bug. I see more disadvantages, if the footnote is repeated in every heading.
So I added the keyword needsUXEval. So I hope that someone else can assess, whether this is a bug or not.
Looks like a bug to me as the footnote grey highlight does appear in the repeated table header and the footnote appears in both places in Word 2010. So lets set to NEW for the time being.
But in Word 2010, the comment that was added to repeated table header also appears in the original table header, so not sure how independent each repeated table header should be. So lets ask some expert.
Regina, Cor, Stuart: What is your take?
(In reply to Dieter Praas from comment #6)
> So I added the keyword needsUXEval. So I hope that someone else can assess,
> whether this is a bug or not.
Only adding the keyword wont get Heiko to notice, as you need to also add the ux-advise email to the CC list as well. Luckily you added a meta bug, which is how i noticed. :D
a minor bug, IMO
Inherited from OOo. Initial code import of sw/source/core/layout/ftnfrm.cxx has a function IsFootnoteAllowed with the comment "no footnotes in repeated headlines".
Since the absence of the footnote number itself is intentional, I'm changing the bug title to be about the gray box needs to be removed also. I'm interested in being shown how to remove the gray block so that it can also be used for bug 54393.
** 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!
Still present in
Version: 184.108.40.206.alpha0+ (x64)
Build ID: 91cdf22b88a4f7bec243c8fb187627e766d3294c
CPU threads: 4; OS: Windows 10.0; UI render: default; VCL: win;
TinderBox: Win-x86_64@42, Branch:master, Time: 2019-03-08_00:38:10
Locale: en-US (de_DE); UI-Language: en-US