Bug 129333 - calc autocalculate quite simple case still buggy
Summary: calc autocalculate quite simple case still buggy
Status: CLOSED DUPLICATE of bug 129396
Alias: None
Product: LibreOffice
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Calc (show other bugs)
Version:
(earliest affected)
7.0.0.0.alpha0+
Hardware: x86-64 (AMD64) All
: medium normal
Assignee: Not Assigned
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords: bibisectRequest, regression
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2019-12-11 18:06 UTC by b.
Modified: 2019-12-13 22:43 UTC (History)
1 user (show)

See Also:
Crash report or crash signature:


Attachments
wrong_calculate_5, also with 6.4.0.0.b1 (x64) (108.67 KB, image/jpeg)
2019-12-11 21:19 UTC, b.
Details

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description b. 2019-12-11 18:06:39 UTC
Description:
simple test: 

A1: 2
B1: 3
C1: =SUM(A1:B1)
A1:C1: copy
A2:C2: paste
C:C: insert column left / before
B2: delete content
D2: observe: !not updated!

from tests from other users in other cases it might be that this error doesn't show up in all situations, but only under special circumstances, i had already suspected calc to be 'not xeon-aware' or 'not 8-core aware' or 'not win7-aware' ... there is yet no clear picture from the feedback ... :-( ... it might be something works differently because i mainly work with 'server installs', (msiexec /a ...) or whatever ... i'd like to find out,  

thus i kindly ask that some testers check out that little script and provide feedback, 



Steps to Reproduce:
1. - A1: 2
2. - B1: 3
3. - C1: =SUM(A1:B1)
4. - A1:C1: copy
5. - A2:C2: paste
6. - C:C: insert column left / before
7. - B2: delete content
8. - D2: observe: !not updated!


Actual Results:
D2 not updated, one may even delete all content in the area A1:C2, D1 and D2 remain with the result '5' despite summing only empty cells ... 

Expected Results:
D2 updated in the same way it would happen if you do not insert a column between source-range and formula


Reproducible: Always


User Profile Reset: Yes



Additional Info:
Version: 6.5.0.0.alpha0+ (x64)
Build ID: 9ab43aebad67383057d2cc3f754ce2193fa78b4e
CPU threads: 8; OS: Windows 6.1 Service Pack 1 Build 7601; UI render: default; VCL: win; 
Locale: de-DE (de_DE); UI-Language: en-US
Calc:
Comment 1 Oliver Brinzing 2019-12-11 19:00:36 UTC
reproducible with:

Version: 6.5.0.0.alpha0+ (x64)
Build ID: 00262b08984fb2fb91b760d588851bd47ae4d3ac
CPU threads: 4; OS: Windows 10.0 Build 18363; UI render: default; VCL: win; 
Locale: de-DE (de_DE); UI-Language: en-US
Calc: threaded

Version: 6.5.0.0.alpha0+ (x64)
Build ID: 00262b08984fb2fb91b760d588851bd47ae4d3ac
CPU threads: 4; OS: Windows 10.0 Build 18363; UI render: default; VCL: win; 
Locale: de-DE (de_DE); UI-Language: en-US
Calc: 

but *not* reproducible with:

Version: 6.4.0.0.beta1 (x64)
Build-ID: 4d7e5b0c40ed843384704eca3ce21981d4e98920
CPU-Threads: 4; BS: Windows 10.0 Build 18363; UI-Render: Standard; VCL: win; 
Gebietsschema: de-DE (de_DE); UI-Sprache: de-DE
Calc: 

Version: 6.3.4.1 (x64)
Build-ID: a21169d87339dfa44546f33d6d159e89881e9d92
CPU-Threads: 4; BS: Windows 10.0; UI-Render: Standard; VCL: win; 
Gebietsschema: de-DE (de_DE); UI-Sprache: de-DE
Calc:
Comment 2 b. 2019-12-11 21:19:42 UTC
Created attachment 156499 [details]
wrong_calculate_5, also with 6.4.0.0.b1 (x64)


thanks for retest, 

imho not! a fresh regression, 

6.4.0.0.beta1 fails too here, see screenshot, 

i have not found any 'notfailing' ver. since 4.1.6.2, 

we have differences in hardware - 8 vs. 4 core, and OS - 7SP1 vs. 10, and perhaps some minor options? 

it may / might / could be that a complex coincidence of special states is necessary for the bug to occur ... i think it is necessary to find out ... 

Version: 6.4.0.0.beta1 (x64)
Build ID: 4d7e5b0c40ed843384704eca3ce21981d4e98920
CPU threads: 8; OS: Windows 6.1 Service Pack 1 Build 7601; UI render: default; VCL: win; 
Locale: de-DE (de_DE); UI-Language: en-US
Calc:
Comment 3 Eike Rathke 2019-12-13 22:42:48 UTC
Let's keep bug 129396 for its concise description. Sorry for duplicate and thanks for creating this one.

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 129396 ***