Bug Hunting Session
Bug 115690 - FILESAVE: first level numbering is not displayed on MSO Word after RT
Summary: FILESAVE: first level numbering is not displayed on MSO Word after RT
Status: NEW
Alias: None
Product: LibreOffice
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Writer (show other bugs)
Version:
(earliest affected)
6.1.0.0.alpha0+
Hardware: All All
: medium normal
Assignee: Not Assigned
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords: bibisected, bisected, filter:docx, regression
Depends on:
Blocks: DOCX-Bullet-Number-Outline-Lists
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2018-02-13 17:36 UTC by Xisco Faulí
Modified: 2019-04-22 02:56 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

See Also:
Crash report or crash signature:


Attachments
05 Orfanosentel bug resavedRT2003.pdf: round tripped in LO, then pdfed by Word2003 (222.46 KB, application/pdf)
2018-02-14 11:19 UTC, Justin L
Details
05 Orfanosentel bugRT2013.docx: .doc roundtripped by MSO2013 (95.06 KB, application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document)
2018-04-21 14:26 UTC, Justin L
Details

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Xisco Faulí 2018-02-13 17:36:09 UTC
Steps to reproduce:
1. Open attachment 68962 [details] from bug 34984
2. Save it as .DOCX
3. Open the new file on MSO Word

Observed behaviour: First level numbering ( page 3, 5, 7, 16 ) are missing

Reproduced in

Version: 6.1.0.0.alpha0+
Build ID: 37a2830387f437cf57104f7f509ec59944004e4d
CPU threads: 4; OS: Linux 4.13; UI render: default; VCL: gtk3; 
Locale: ca-ES (ca_ES.UTF-8); Calc: group

[Bug found by office-interoperability-tools]
Comment 1 Xisco Faulí 2018-02-13 17:37:21 UTC
Regression introduced by:

author	Justin Luth <justin_luth@sil.org>	2018-01-12 22:00:05 +0300
committer	Miklos Vajna <vmiklos@collabora.co.uk>	2018-01-18 10:37:49 +0100
commit	8e9e705de29a1a3d9b964c9350aa2a3a17cce6f9 (patch)
tree	690126ca9709a5273f474f564b5214289ab65adb
parent	66d0e154dcf1fc1fe7b80dd4ac56fa90aa6cbe38 (diff)
tdf#76817 ooxmlexport: only use stylename for Outline list
In LibreOffice, the special, built-in, Outline numbering style
("Chapter Numbering") is connected via the paragraph style
to control the numbering.

Thus, only the ParaStyleName should be written to
the paragraph properties, and not the direct numbering properties.
Both MSO and LO get confused when there are multiple definitions
for outline numbering.

Bisected with: bibisect-linux64-6.1

Adding Cc: to Justin Luth
Comment 2 Justin L 2018-02-14 11:19:59 UTC
Created attachment 139898 [details]
05 Orfanosentel bug resavedRT2003.pdf: round tripped in LO, then pdfed by Word2003

Important note: step 3 indicates that the problem is only seen in Word. I am not able to reproduce this with Word 2003 - which is the version readily available to me.
Comment 3 Justin L 2018-04-03 12:17:02 UTC
Also unable to reproduce missing first level numbering with office 2010.  However, I noticed that in both 2003 and 2010, that the sub-level numbering  in section was started at 1.2 instead of 3.1.
Comment 4 Justin L 2018-04-14 15:00:20 UTC
Interesting.  The first RT has problems in word, but a second RT doesn't.
It appears that having two styles with name "Heading 1" and "heading 1" can cause a problem (testing with office 2010).  The styleId is different (Heading1 and Heading11), and even though it uses the right styleId (Heading1), it appears to pick up the settings of "heading 1".  Manually removing Heading11 fixes it.  The second round-trip automatically remove Heading11 and also abstractnumbering 2.
Comment 5 Justin L 2018-04-16 15:55:08 UTC
Just trying to merge or get rid of Heading1 or heading1 might be complicated.  see https://gerrit.libreoffice.org/#/c/39396/
Comment 6 Justin L 2018-04-21 14:26:29 UTC
Created attachment 141523 [details]
05 Orfanosentel bugRT2013.docx: .doc roundtripped by MSO2013

This actually looks more like a Microsoft bug than anything. Also, if I first round-trip the .doc file in MSO2003/2010/2013, then LO also also round-trips it OK as can be proven by this 2013-created .docx.

I guess it is OK to leave this bug open, but I'm going to treat it as WONTFIX since it seems very unlikely to re-surface, probably isn't truly a regression, and is so easily fixed by just one extra save.
Comment 7 QA Administrators 2019-04-22 02:56:50 UTC Comment hidden (spam)