Some expressions' first letters eligible to be capitalized are not capitalized.
Steps to Reproduce:
1. Under Fedora, open a new ODT document, enter 'a' as only content;
2. Under Tools -> AutoCorrect, check While Typing;
3. Under Tools -> AutoCorrect -> AutoCorrect Options, Options tab, check both boxes for Capitalize first letter of every sentence, one for initial typing, the other for modification of existing text;
4. Alternate the use of following combinations with Step 1. : '. ', '.[Return]', '! ', '? ';
5. Enter as contents, each alone, 'Linux? linux. ', 'Linux? a. ', 'A? linux. '.
4. – Combinations '. ', '.[Return]' do not trigger capitalization operations.
5. – Respective results are 'Linux? Linux. ', 'Linux? a. ', 'A? linux. '. Only expression 'linux' in first content has been capitalized as expected.
Assuming full stop ('.'), question mark ('?'), exclamation point ('!') followed by space mark (' ') or [Return] mark at the end of an expression, answer to the definition of a sentence.
The following steps' contents are eligible to trigger capitalization operations.
4. – 'a. ', 'a.[Return]'.
5. – 'Linux? a. ', 'A? linux. '.
User Profile Reset: Yes
Version: 126.96.36.199; Build ID: 188.8.131.52-4.fc29; CPU threads: 4; OS: Linux 4.19; UI render: default; VCL: gtk3; Locale: en-GB (en_GB.UTF-8); Calc: group threaded
Thank you for reporting the bug. I can reproduce the bug in
Build ID: 3c964980da07892a02d5ac721d80558c459532d0
CPU threads: 2; OS: Windows 6.1; UI render: default; VCL: win;
TinderBox: Win-x86@42, Branch:master, Time: 2018-12-12_02:07:45
Locale: en-US (en_US); UI-Language: en-US
I guess it is some rule made on purpose, possibly a balancing act trying not to annoy users. The same applies for strings with 2 characters: 'ab. ' will not capitalise.
I found the condition:
In the function definition void SvxAutoCorrect::FnCapitalStartSentence
> if( *pDelim && 2 >= pDelim - pWordStt &&
> lcl_IsInAsciiArr( ".-)>", *pDelim ) )
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 https://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!
Version: 184.108.40.206; Build ID: 00(Build:2); CPU threads: 4; OS: Linux 5.10; UI render: default; VCL: gtk3; Locale: fi-FI (fi_FI.UTF-8); UI: en-US; Calc: threaded
I still observe the depicted behaviours. They may though be expected as the results of an applied hidden rule as suggested. By essence, users cannot be aware of how such a rule would be aimed to apply and then unable to determine whether there are some incorrect results if any.