In order to reproduce the bug: [1] Create new text document. [2] Display Navigator: F5. [2] Insert a drawing object, e.g. a rectangle: Insert > Shape > … The name of the object (Shape1) is displayed in the Navigator. [3] Select drawing object. [4] Delete name of the object: Format > Name… The dialogue Name is displayed. Delete name completely. Then OK. In the Navigator the name of the object is no longer displayed. Expected: Deleting of a name should not be possible because otherwise the object is not listed in the Navigator. For that the OK button should be greyed. [5] Select object again. [6] Open dialogue Name again. [7] Insert one or more blanks as name. Then OK. Now a blank item for the object is displayed in the Navigator. Expected: Also the use of only blanks should not be possible. For that the OK button should be greyed. Bug already exists in version 3.3.0, therefore inherited from OOo.
Harald, I can confirm the observed behaviour, but I won't consider this as a bug. Let's ask design team.
There might be no name by purpose. For example you generate a "Table of Figures" from object name and do not want this drawing object to be included in the index. Or you do not want, that such drawing object is visible in the Navigator. Or you do not want to get identical names in Navigator if you copy&paste it a lot. Such is likely in case your drawing is a sign or ersatz for a missing glyph and used as character.
I tend to agree with Harald. My expectation would be that clearing a name inserts the default (ShapeX with X for the first not existing number). (In reply to Regina Henschel from comment #2) > drawing object is not visible in the Navigator. Why should an object be hidden in the Navigator? > want to get identical names That's possible anyway. > "Table of Figures" ... this drawing object to be included Unnaming objects sounds like a dirty workaround. But admitted this one is a use case. Other opinions?
(In reply to Regina Henschel from comment #2) > There might be no name by purpose. For example you generate a "Table of > Figures" from object name and do not want this drawing object to be included > in the index. As far as I tested this, currently (version 6.1.4) it is not possible to create a "Table of Figures" with drawing objects at all. May be this is a bug too. > Or you do not want, that such drawing object is visible in the > Navigator. Like Heiko I do not see a reason to hide a drawing object in the Navigator. In the contrary I like to see them all in the Navigator especially in order to find them all in bigger documents. > Or you do not want to get identical names in Navigator if you > copy&paste it a lot. Such is likely in case your drawing is a sign or ersatz > for a missing glyph and used as character. Yes, it is possible to create drawing objects with the same name by using copy&paste. But I think it is not intended, because if you try to rename a drawing object with "Format > Name...", it is not possible to assign an existing name. In case of using the copy&paste function I would expect that LibreOffice creates a new name for the copy, e.g. "Shape1 - Copy" or "Shape1 (Copy)".
Hi, it seems, that I was not clear enough. My uses case, that you have a drawing, that is used inside text as sign or ersatz for missing glyphs. Such occur in writing guides and the same shape might be used very often in the text. You might want shapes instead of images, because they can be better scaled, and better adapted in regard to color. I'm sure you do not want that such shapes are listed in Navigator or index. (In reply to Harald Koester from comment #4) > Yes, it is possible to create drawing objects with the same name by using > copy&paste. But I think it is not intended. That was my point. If you delete the name, then there is no double name after copy&paste; workaround till the double-name bug is fixed. (In reply to Harald Koester from comment #4) > As far as I tested this, currently (version 6.1.4) it is not possible to > create a "Table of Figures" with drawing objects at all. May be this is a > bug too. You are right. I had tried it, but now cannot get it again.
(In reply to Regina Henschel from comment #5) > Hi, it seems, that I was not clear enough. My uses case, that you have a > drawing, that is used inside text as sign or ersatz for missing glyphs. Such > occur in writing guides and the same shape might be used very often in the > text. You might want shapes instead of images, because they can be better > scaled, and better adapted in regard to color. > I'm sure you do not want that such shapes are listed in Navigator or index. Hi Regina, yes, I see the use case, that images and drawing objects (I think text frames too.) may be used instead of characters (“Anchor as character”). I also see, that the number of such signs within a single document may be quite a lot. I would expect, that these 3 kinds of signs (images, drawings, text frames) are treated equal with respect to naming, handling with the Navigator or within an index, ... Currently this is not the case. As far as I understand you your requirement to these kinds of signs are: * A user should be able to decide if signs are displayed in the Navigator. * A user should be able to decide if signs are listed in an index. As far as I understand you, deleting names of such signs is not a requirement, but a means to an end in order to fulfill the above requirements. To my opinion deleting names is not a suitable solution for these requirements, because it is not obvious for a user, it is not documented and currently it does not work for all kind of signs. I believe it's just a random result. One should think about another solution for these cases, perhaps an option to hide signs, that are anchored as characters, in the Navigator and in indexes. > (In reply to Harald Koester from comment #4) > > Yes, it is possible to create drawing objects with the same name by using > > copy&paste. But I think it is not intended. > That was my point. If you delete the name, then there is no double name > after copy&paste; workaround till the double-name bug is fixed. Is there already a bug report written regarding this subject, I did not found one?
(In reply to Heiko Tietze from comment #3) > I tend to agree with Harald. My expectation would be that clearing a name > inserts the default (ShapeX with X for the first not existing number). > ... > > Other opinions? I fully agree with this opinion
We discussed this topic in the design meeting. While the workflow is obviously not clear to the users it has the benefit of hiding objects in the Navigator. And the better alternative to keeping the current situation, which is adding a flag "Hide at Navigator and ToC", involves some coding effort for not too much benefit. So the verdict is NAB.
What about using blanks as object name (see step 7 of initial report)? Shall this be allowed? This topic is used differently at different kinds of objects. E.g. in table names blanks are not allowed at all while frame names may consist only of blanks.
(In reply to Harald Koester from comment #9) > What about using blanks as object name... I agree with you and would strip off or block all trailing white space. But OTOH the effort vs. benefit argument is still not on our side. Simplest solution to make everyone happy would be to add a checkbox to the names dialog "[ ] Hide at the Navigator" that disables the name field and makes the string empty. I the checkbox is unchecked the input would be checked for whitespace and zero length and, least dialog effort, automatically replaced. However, I don't see a dev working on the Ui only as this changes nothing and is not really challenging/interesting. And how many people acknowledge the change beyond the highly attentional QA people?