Bug 119951 - FILEOPEN PPTX: Some row heights in table different from MSO
Summary: FILEOPEN PPTX: Some row heights in table different from MSO
Status: NEW
Alias: None
Product: LibreOffice
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Impress (show other bugs)
Version:
(earliest affected)
5.0.0.5 release
Hardware: All All
: medium normal
Assignee: Not Assigned
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords: bibisected, bisected, filter:pptx, regression
: 133935 139494 (view as bug list)
Depends on:
Blocks: PPTX-Tables
  Show dependency tree / graph
 
Reported: 2018-09-18 08:56 UTC by Timur
Modified: 2023-10-02 15:58 UTC (History)
8 users (show)

See Also:
Crash report or crash signature:

Attachments
Example slide PPTX (117.00 KB, application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.presentationml.presentation)
2018-09-18 08:56 UTC, Timur 		Details
Example slide PDF from MSO (131.76 KB, application/pdf)
2018-09-18 08:57 UTC, Timur 		Details
Comparsion LibreOffice 6.2 master and MSO PP 2010 (181.81 KB, image/png)
2018-09-18 09:59 UTC, Xisco Faulí 		Details
Another sample PPTX (33.60 KB, application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.presentationml.presentation)
2020-10-14 00:30 UTC, Aron Budea 		Details
Another sample exported to PDF in PP 2013 (82.49 KB, application/pdf)
2020-10-14 00:31 UTC, Aron Budea 		Details
Comparison LibreOffice 7.1 master and MSO 2010 after the patch (209.20 KB, image/png)
2020-11-09 14:55 UTC, Xisco Faulí 		Details
View All Add an attachment (proposed patch, testcase, etc.)

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Timur 2018-09-18 08:56:19 UTC 
Created attachment 144971 [details]
Example slide PPTX

I can't say whether this is a bug and worth reporting, but since fileopen is different from MSO and it was the same before, so regression suspected:

1. open attached PPTX that is slide 6 from Bug 50265 saved in MSO
2. see that some row heights in left NS table are different from MSO for rows "ns1.r01.ru., ns2.r01.ru.", "Не указаны", "Прочие" 

Repro with 6.2+ and since LO 5.0, it was the same as MSO before with 4.4.
Comment 1 Timur 2018-09-18 08:57:30 UTC 
Created attachment 144972 [details]
Example slide PDF from MSO
Comment 2 Xisco Faulí 2018-09-18 09:59:52 UTC 
Created attachment 144978 [details]
Comparsion LibreOffice 6.2 master and MSO PP 2010
Comment 3 Xisco Faulí 2018-09-18 10:10:18 UTC 
Regression introduced by:

https://cgit.freedesktop.org/libreoffice/core/commit/?id=037fe3671cbdad51f52d2f69f72f47f463dba7c2

author	Andras Timar <andras.timar@collabora.com>	2015-04-02 13:42:11 +0200
committer	Andras Timar <andras.timar@collabora.com>	2015-04-03 06:45:23 +0000
commit 037fe3671cbdad51f52d2f69f72f47f463dba7c2 (patch)
tree 25030f6febd5421414f9098f1b6a6f67a5ae517f
parent fefe034126e45db005f7fc45e5162c41ae69b05a (diff)
tdf#90403 PPTX import: use real table size

Bisected with: bibisect-50max

Adding Cc: to Andras Timar

@Justin Luth, I thought you could be interested in this issue as well...
Comment 4 Timur 2020-01-11 10:59:12 UTC 
Repro 6.5+.
Comment 5 Aron Budea 2020-10-14 00:30:07 UTC 
I'd be inclined to use default importance. While in itself the difference is small, when it comes to interoperability, fidelity is important.
Comment 6 Aron Budea 2020-10-14 00:30:48 UTC 
Created attachment 166356 [details]
Another sample PPTX
Comment 7 Aron Budea 2020-10-14 00:31:35 UTC 
Created attachment 166357 [details]
Another sample exported to PDF in PP 2013
Comment 8 Xisco Faulí 2020-11-09 14:54:08 UTC 
The situation has improved after https://git.libreoffice.org/core/+/b7b05dd36403af50b20fe06cbf8a10d8defb28a9%5E%21
Comment 9 Xisco Faulí 2020-11-09 14:55:24 UTC 
Created attachment 167141 [details]
Comparison LibreOffice 7.1 master and  MSO 2010 after the patch
Comment 10 Timur 2020-11-09 15:04:47 UTC Comment hidden (obsolete)
Comment 11 Xisco Faulí 2020-11-09 15:11:53 UTC 
(In reply to Timur from comment #10)
> Not sure if this is worth further keeping open.

I think it's worth it. attachment 166356 [details] is also affected by the same problem
Comment 12 Xisco Faulí 2020-11-19 16:47:14 UTC 
*** Bug 133935 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 13 Justin L 2022-02-09 08:12:22 UTC 
*** Bug 139494 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***