Created attachment 158282 [details] Example to examine the number of vertical segments Look into attached file. It has for the rotation object the attribute dr3d:vertical-segments="1" in style "gr2". That is correct, because the path of the object is a single line. Now open the file in Draw and open the "3D Effects" dialog. It has a cone. The line style is set to "solid" so that the segments are visible. Click on the object. Change something in the dialog, e.g. set angle to 270°. Assign it. Now the cone has no longer 1 vertical segment but 2. Go back to the dialog and try to change the number of vertical segments back to 1. It is not possible. It is valid for a rotation object to have 1 vertical segments. If the underlying path is a polyline, then the vertical segments correspond to the number of line segments in the path. And in case the path has only a single line segment the number in 'vertical segments' should be 1 too.
Just for information, with this patch: diff --git a/svx/uiconfig/ui/docking3deffects.ui b/svx/uiconfig/ui/docking3deffects.ui index d08c981ac984..bfa45fe5befa 100644 --- a/svx/uiconfig/ui/docking3deffects.ui +++ b/svx/uiconfig/ui/docking3deffects.ui @@ -50,7 +50,7 @@ <property name="page_increment">10</property> </object> <object class="GtkAdjustment" id="adjustment9"> - <property name="lower">2</property> + <property name="lower">1</property> <property name="upper">256</property> <property name="step_increment">1</property> <property name="page_increment">10</property> vertical displays "1". (adjustement9 is related to vertical segments with: 494 <object class="GtkSpinButton" id="veri"> 495 <property name="visible">True</property> 496 <property name="can_focus">True</property> 497 <property name="text">0</property> 498 <property name="adjustment">adjustment9</property> 499 </object> )
Moving to NEW @Julien, Do you plan to submit the patch to gerrit ?
(In reply to Xisco Faulí from comment #2) > Moving to NEW > > @Julien, Do you plan to submit the patch to gerrit ? It was more a code pointer because I don't know why it's been put at 2 for min. So don't hesitate to submit a patch on gerrit if you want and know the impact.
(In reply to Julien Nabet from comment #3) > (In reply to Xisco Faulí from comment #2) > > Moving to NEW > > > > @Julien, Do you plan to submit the patch to gerrit ? > > It was more a code pointer because I don't know why it's been put at 2 for > min. > So don't hesitate to submit a patch on gerrit if you want and know the > impact. Also, what about horizontal part? There's also "2" for min, should it be changed to "1" ?
(In reply to Julien Nabet from comment #4) > Also, what about horizontal part? There's also "2" for min, should it be > changed to "1" ? I don't know, whether horizontal "1" has any impacts. I know no scenario, which generates such object. And I see no use case for it. In contrast to vertical, where the user can generate such object.
Patch waiting for review here: https://gerrit.libreoffice.org/c/core/+/89933
Julien Nabet committed a patch related to this issue. It has been pushed to "master": https://git.libreoffice.org/core/commit/3d38514166b2e3090e03d16df11e83e184eee433 tdf#131044: 3D Effects dialog should allow to set 1 vertical segment It will be available in 7.0.0. The patch should be included in the daily builds available at https://dev-builds.libreoffice.org/daily/ in the next 24-48 hours. More information about daily builds can be found at: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Testing_Daily_Builds Affected users are encouraged to test the fix and report feedback.
Just for the record, the dialog was welded by https://cgit.freedesktop.org/libreoffice/core/commit/?id=278f01eadd513608e306ea6b85d52fb115a6dedf
wrt comment comment #8, my understanding is that the min of 2 precedes my involvement, and checking openoffice.org that does seem to be the case
(In reply to Caolán McNamara from comment #9) > wrt comment comment #8, my understanding is that the min of 2 precedes my > involvement, and checking openoffice.org that does seem to be the case Yep, not saying it was introduced by the welding process. @Julien, would it be possible to backport it to 6-4 branch ?
(In reply to Xisco Faulí from comment #10) > (In reply to Caolán McNamara from comment #9) > > wrt comment comment #8, my understanding is that the min of 2 precedes my > > involvement, and checking openoffice.org that does seem to be the case > > Yep, not saying it was introduced by the welding process. > @Julien, would it be possible to backport it to 6-4 branch ? There's a conflict and I don't know why. => unassign myself.
Because of the welding process. anyway, the issue has been around since forever, no real need for the backport. Should we close it ?
(In reply to Xisco Faulí from comment #12) > Because of the welding process. anyway, the issue has been around since > forever, no real need for the backport. Should we close it ? I let Regina decide, I've got no opinion here.
No backport.