Download it now!
Bug 127784 - FIND & REPLACE DIALOG: Find & Replace Format dialog results in no found
Summary: FIND & REPLACE DIALOG: Find & Replace Format dialog results in no found
Status: NEEDINFO
Alias: None
Product: LibreOffice
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Writer (show other bugs)
Version:
(earliest affected)
6.1.6.3 release
Hardware: All Windows (All)
: medium normal
Assignee: Not Assigned
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords: bibisectRequest, regression
Depends on:
Blocks: Find&Replace-Dialog
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2019-09-26 12:17 UTC by Pit Zaclade
Modified: 2020-01-13 07:04 UTC (History)
1 user (show)

See Also:
Crash report or crash signature:


Attachments

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Pit Zaclade 2019-09-26 12:17:21 UTC
Description:
If the Find & Replace dialog is combined with Format than exists no results

Steps to Reproduce:
1. Write the first line (paragraph)
2. F12
3. Marke first paragraph and Format→ Character :  DejaVu Serif 
4. Edit→Find&replace→ Find : (.*)
5. Regular expressions yes , Paragraph Styles no
6. Format→ Font : DejaVu Serif, Text Flow : all options destroyed
7. Result: Below Find line exists not only the  DejaVu Serif, but other parameters
8. Reset Format
9. oncemore Format→ Font : DejaVu Serif, and nothing more
10. Result: Below Find line exists not only the  DejaVu Serif, but Orphan control 0 Lines, Widow control 0 Lines,
11. Replace : &
12. Format→ Font : Times New Roman
13. Find All
14. Result: Search key not found!


Actual Results:
Search key not found

Expected Results:
Search have to find the first paragraph = line


Reproducible: Always


User Profile Reset: No



Additional Info:
Comment 1 Dieter 2019-09-29 19:38:43 UTC
I can reproduce steps 1 to 10, but I don't understand steps 11 to 14.
Comment 2 Pit Zaclade 2019-09-30 08:26:35 UTC
Step 11 - 14 indicate that nobody don´t replace DejaVu Serif alone with Times New Roman, because it is not passible to find DejaVu Serif alone.
Comment 3 Dieter 2019-09-30 08:57:10 UTC
I confirm your behaviour with

Version: 6.4.0.0.alpha0+ (x64)
Build ID: f0c832acb53326ccc9a8c1a47401fbc9e1081feb
CPU threads: 4; OS: Windows 10.0; UI render: default; VCL: win; 
TinderBox: Win-x86_64@62-TDF, Branch:master, Time: 2019-09-11_05:46:53
Locale: de-DE (de_DE); UI-Language: en-US
Calc: threaded

And also with

Version: 6.1.6.3 (x64)
Build ID: 5896ab1714085361c45cf540f76f60673dd96a72
CPU threads: 4; OS: Windows 10.0; UI render: GL; 
Locale: de-DE (de_DE); Calc: group threaded

But not with

Version: 5.4.7.2 (x64)
Build-ID: c838ef25c16710f8838b1faec480ebba495259d0
CPU-Threads: 4; BS: Windows 6.19; UI-Render: GL; 
Gebietsschema: de-DE (de_DE); Calc: group

Steps to reproduce
1. Write some text
2. Open find & replace dialog
3. insert a word in search field, that exists in the text
4. Result: Word is found
5. Press format-button
6. Text flow tab => O. K. (change nothing in settings)
7. Orphan control 0 lines, widow control 0 lines is added to search criteria (that doesn't happen in LO 5.4)
8. Result: Search key not found.
Comment 4 Alexis 2019-09-30 19:49:15 UTC

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 127725 ***
Comment 5 Alexis 2019-09-30 19:50:31 UTC
This appears to be a duplicate of a bug I reported previously. A commenter on another site suggests this may be limited to .deb packaged versions of LO.
Comment 6 Dieter 2019-09-30 19:57:41 UTC
(In reply to Alexis from comment #5)
> This appears to be a duplicate of a bug I reported previously. A commenter
> on another site suggests this may be limited to .deb packaged versions of LO.

Alexis, I culdn't reproduce your bug report, so I'm not 100% sure, that it is a duplicate. Since I'm using windows, bug 127784 is not only an Linux issue.

So I suggest to treat them separate. I also think, i's not a good idea to close a confirmed bug as duplicate of an unconfirmed on. I hope, you agree.
Comment 7 Pit Zaclade 2019-09-30 21:08:55 UTC
(Sorry, my english is very poor.)
But I am feeling that the other named bug which is discussed as a duplicate, is not a duplicate: In my case the both fonts are installed, but in the other bug the second font was not installed.
Comment 8 stragu 2020-01-07 05:30:24 UTC
This sounds very similar to the already-fixed bug 126527.

Could you please install the latest 6.4 version and check?

Cheers
Comment 9 Dieter 2020-01-13 07:04:48 UTC
(In reply to stragu from comment #8)
> This sounds very similar to the already-fixed bug 126527.
> 
> Could you please install the latest 6.4 version and check?

=> NEEDINFO