Description: for the Bug Hunting Session 6.4 RC1: this: https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=43003 quite old bug is still virulent in RC1. the sheet to show doesn't need to be as complex as there, see next comment, Steps to Reproduce: 1. open sample sheet from next comment, 2. compare results in C4:D4 with C6:D6, 3. play with values in B4, B6, try to trigger recalculation, 4. save sheet with altered values in B4, B6, 5. load again and observe C4:D4 updated - calculation possible, 6. observe C6:D6 not correct but same values as C4:D4, 7. observe again: no recalc possible, Actual Results: result for array function not correct, Expected Results: both arrays calculated correctly and changed on change of input values, Reproducible: Always User Profile Reset: Yes Additional Info: it looks as if the array-macro-function is calculated only once on load of file, Version: 6.4.0.1 (x64) Build ID: 1b6477b31f0334bd8620a96f0aeeb449b587be9f 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:
Created attachment 157025 [details] testsheet where only one array function is evaluated and only on load testsheet where only one array function is evaluated and only on load
Hi b, to me, it seems the same as bug 43003. What's the reason you created another bug? Could you please explain the difference between them ?
@xisco: - yes, mostly the same, - new aspect: second instance of array not calculated, - refresh for bug hunting session, - shorter more concise sample, - after 8 years and two 'refresh-refocussing-requests' i doubt commenting there will help, - see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31xA9p3pYE4&feature=youtu.be&t=1029 - sorry, german - orienting statement: 'i once met the guy who manages the IE bugs ... he said: "there are so many bugs coming in, we don't get to work on them, we just manage them" '. reg. b.
(In reply to b. from comment #3) > @xisco: > > - yes, mostly the same, > - new aspect: second instance of array not calculated, > - refresh for bug hunting session, > - shorter more concise sample, > - after 8 years and two 'refresh-refocussing-requests' i doubt commenting > there will help, > - see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31xA9p3pYE4&feature=youtu.be&t=1029 - > sorry, german - orienting statement: 'i once met the guy who manages the IE > bugs ... he said: "there are so many bugs coming in, we don't get to work on > them, we just manage them" '. > > reg. > > b. Well, I agree with you, but reporting the same bugs again and again doesn't help either. Besides, the summary is talking about macros, while the steps doesn't mention anything about macros *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 43003 ***
@xisco: "'Well, I agree with you, but reporting the same bugs again and again doesn't help either." well i agree with you, neither way produces / produced any progress, "Besides, the summary is talking about macros, while the steps doesn't mention anything about macros" the "macro(s)" are / is the function 'incdinc' - a macro 'function' - used as an array formula in CD4 and CD6, to handle 'old' bugs i suggest the following: if a thread become too long, then after 12 month without progress a developer or someone with skills writes a concise summary of the bug and the info collected, and that is posted two times, once as last comment for the original bug, that closed as 'old', and posted a second time together with the relevant attachements and a reference to the old bug as the start of a new thread. "*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 43003 ***" what doesn't help either, if i'm remembering right @Eike wrote somewhere that macro functions can't be evaluated in all situations, and that the expectations from 'recalculates all cells in a sheet / file' in the help / manual are too high ('manual is misleading'), could be an approach to check whether that applies to this situation, and if: correct help and manual. reg. b.