Bug 117811 - Suggestion: Replace also in protected sections
Summary: Suggestion: Replace also in protected sections
Status: NEW
Alias: None
Product: LibreOffice
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Writer (show other bugs)
Version:
(earliest affected)
unspecified
Hardware: All All
: medium enhancement
Assignee: Not Assigned
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks: Find&Replace-Dialog
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2018-05-25 23:04 UTC by Leandro Martín Drudi
Modified: 2018-06-30 19:50 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

See Also:
Crash report or crash signature:


Attachments
An example of results. (96.66 KB, image/jpeg)
2018-05-25 23:09 UTC, Leandro Martín Drudi
Details

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Leandro Martín Drudi 2018-05-25 23:04:56 UTC
Description:
If there are blocked sections and you need to replace a term, the blocked sections are skipped.
This is not a problem if there are few sections, but in very long files, unlocking sections is complex and may require replacing a term in them.

Steps to Reproduce:
1. Call Find and replace dialog
2. Write the terms to replace
3. Click any button
4. Terms are replaced in all sections except for protected ones.

Actual Results:  
Terms are replaced in all sections except for protected ones.

Expected Results:
Activate a check box that allows replacing the terms throughout the document, omitting if the section is protected or not.


Reproducible: Always


User Profile Reset: No



Additional Info:
A warning can be displayed when activating or initiating the replacement attempt. Maybe stop at a match inside a protected section.


User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/60.0
Comment 1 Leandro Martín Drudi 2018-05-25 23:09:27 UTC
Created attachment 142284 [details]
An example of results.

This is an example of what happened to me. I tried to change the name of a character in my novel and it was changed in the whole document but it was kept in blocked sections. Until I discovered this, I almost went crazy. If I had not found by accident that the name still remained in this paragraph (and in 7 other coincidences), I could have followed a serious error at the time of publishing.
Having the option of omitting the protection or a message that warned me that they were not replaced X amount to be in blocked sections would have been very helpful.
Comment 2 Heiko Tietze 2018-06-28 08:22:54 UTC
We discussed the topic in the design meeting

+ another option on top of what we have makes it not worse, so +1
+ OTOH manually changes to protected sections are not possible, so why automatic
+ if we don't allow the operation we could give better feedback like 
  "Search key replaced 42 times. But there are 2 protected sections that weren't touched."

(the last is my recommendation)
Comment 3 Leandro Martín Drudi 2018-06-28 18:28:29 UTC
Yes(In reply to Heiko Tietze from comment #2)
> We discussed the topic in the design meeting
> 
> + another option on top of what we have makes it not worse, so +1
> + OTOH manually changes to protected sections are not possible, so why
> automatic
> + if we don't allow the operation we could give better feedback like 
>   "Search key replaced 42 times. But there are 2 protected sections that
> weren't touched."
> 
> (the last is my recommendation)

[ES]
Después de publicar pensé en los archivos compartidos que uno espera no se modifiquen. Así que creo que:
1) Un mensaje más detallado (incluso la cantidad que no se reemplazó por estar en secciones protegidas).
2) Este mensaje, más visible y/o destacado (color, negrita, enmarcado, etc.) porque se pierde entre todo el contenido de la ventana.

[EN]
After publishing, I thought about the shared files that one hopes will not be modified. So I think that:
1) A more detailed message (including the amount that was not replaced by being in protected sections).
2) This message, more visible and / or highlighted (color, bold, framed, etc.) because it is lost among all the contents of the window.