Description: Using format "TT.MM.JJJJ HH:MM:SS,000000000000000000" values that have a zero fractional part get formatted with fewer digits in the fractional part than those whose fractional part is non-zero. Of course, using this kind of format is not a common use case. I stumbled on this while analysing round-off errors in the context of bug 127334. How to reproduce: - Open a new spreadsheet - Make column A wide enough so it can display the formatted values - Select column A, i.e. the cells A1:A1048576 - Set the number format of this cell range to "TT.MM.JJJJ HH:MM:SS,000000000000000000" - Fill the range with time values starting vom 10.9.2019 using a time increment of 0.1 seconds. For this purpose open "Tabelle -> Zellen ausfüllen -> Reihen". Set "Reihentyp" to "Linear", "Anfangswert" to "10.9.2019" and "Zunahme" to "00:00:00,1". Press ok. It takes a few moments until the values will show up. Actual behaviour: The representation of the values representing full seconds is by three digits shorter than that of the other values when using version 6.2.6.2. If you use Version: 6.0.4.2 (x64) all representations use the same length except that in cell A1 where the last three digits are replaced by squares (probably indicating illegal characters). Expected behaviour: The representation of all values should use the same number of digits.
Please attach a sample file.
For roughly the same reasons I explained in https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=127476#c2 I do not want to upload an example file. The real problems are bug 127334 and bug 127477. I mentioned this bug so someone that cares about bug 127334 may keep an eye on this and may occasionally fix it. Note: The time the light needs to travel the size of an atom is longer than the durations that this format allows to express. That is not something I usually have to deal with.
Sample file is required. Set to NEEDINFO. Change back to UNCONFIRMED after you have provided the document.
Created attachment 159869 [details] Example file created using Windows version 6.0.4.2
Created attachment 159870 [details] Example file created using Linux version 6.3.5.2
I don't know what the bug is, you are going beyond limits with decimal places. Precision in calc is limited to fifteen numbers plus sing, incluiding decimal places, In fact reducing decimal places to fifteen doesn't show the supposed issue.
Previous versions of LibreOffice showed a different behaviour when you went beyond the limit with decimal places. I studied this behaviour in the context of bug 127334. So I reported the changed behaviour in the hope that this may provide insights helpful for fixing this bug. Nevertheless I think the observed behaviour is a bug of its own right: LibreOffice should either disable the use of so many decimal places or show a consistent and documented behaviour if it allows formats like this - they may be sometimes useful. A decision which option to choose could be made in the context of an ongoing clarification process (bug 127170).
Ok, discussed with Mike K. and he said we should keep this open
it's more an oddity than a bug, but, @Albrecht Müller is right (and has sharp eyes) it doesn't have to and shouldn't be like this, the less such inconsistencies develop the less stupid questions arise, and the less confusion is injected into other procedures not astonishing it's not only TT.MM.JJJJ HH:MM:SS,000000000000000000 affected but also TT.MM.JJJJ HH:MM:SS,00000000000000000 TT.MM.JJJJ HH:MM:SS,0000000000000000 TT.MM.JJJJ HH:MM:SS,0000000000000000000 TT.MM.JJJJ HH:MM:SS,00000000000000000000 and formats with differenct 'day part' like JJJJ-MM-TT (YYYY-MM-DD) too
Dear Albrecht Müller, 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://web.libera.chat/?settings=#libreoffice-qa Thank you for helping us make LibreOffice even better for everyone! Warm Regards, QA Team MassPing-UntouchedBug
I'm seeing what appears to be the same result as the original report using the following LO version. A snippet of the display is included. Version: 25.2.1.2 (X86_64) / LibreOffice Community Build ID: d3abf4aee5fd705e4a92bba33a32f40bc4e56f49 CPU threads: 12; OS: Windows 11 X86_64 (10.0 build 26100); UI render: Skia/Raster; VCL: win Locale: en-US (en_US); UI: en-US Calc: CL threaded From attachment file 159870: 10.09.2019 00:00:00.800000000000000000 10.09.2019 00:00:00.900000000000000000 10.09.2019 00:00:01.000000000000000 10.09.2019 00:00:01.100000000000000000