Bug 132653 - frame lost after reopen
Summary: frame lost after reopen
Status: RESOLVED WORKSFORME
Alias: None
Product: LibreOffice
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Writer (show other bugs)
Version:
(earliest affected)
6.4.3.2 release
Hardware: x86-64 (AMD64) Linux (All)
: medium enhancement
Assignee: Not Assigned
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2020-05-03 19:17 UTC by Ulf Zibis
Modified: 2020-05-07 15:42 UTC (History)
1 user (show)

See Also:
Crash report or crash signature:


Attachments
Original DOCX file (1.50 MB, application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document)
2020-05-03 19:17 UTC, Ulf Zibis
Details
screen shot remove marked text and note marked frame (173.96 KB, image/png)
2020-05-03 19:21 UTC, Ulf Zibis
Details
Result saved as ODT (270.37 KB, application/vnd.oasis.opendocument.text)
2020-05-03 19:23 UTC, Ulf Zibis
Details
screen shot after reopening the ODT again (32.08 KB, image/png)
2020-05-03 19:24 UTC, Ulf Zibis
Details
DocumentAsDOCX-VisibleFrame-Properties-LO64.png (121.74 KB, image/png)
2020-05-03 21:47 UTC, Bart
Details
DocumentAsODT-HiddenFrame-Properties-LO64.png (117.79 KB, image/png)
2020-05-03 21:48 UTC, Bart
Details

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Ulf Zibis 2020-05-03 19:17:31 UTC
Created attachment 160290 [details]
Original DOCX file

- Open the attached DOCX file. It has 7 pages (paper size DIN A4).
- Delete the content of the 1st page (except page header) as shown in attached screen shot. Now 6 pages should remain, and feel free to print it, but not necessary.
- Note the frames around the following 5 lines.
- Save the document as ODT and close it.
- Open the ODT again ... now the 5 lines are no more surrounded by frames.
Comment 1 Ulf Zibis 2020-05-03 19:21:44 UTC
Created attachment 160291 [details]
screen shot remove marked text and note marked frame

This screenshot shows the text to remove and the 5 lines in frames to note.
Comment 2 Ulf Zibis 2020-05-03 19:23:14 UTC
Created attachment 160292 [details]
Result saved as ODT
Comment 3 Ulf Zibis 2020-05-03 19:24:55 UTC
Created attachment 160293 [details]
screen shot after reopening the ODT again
Comment 4 Ulf Zibis 2020-05-03 19:34:34 UTC
Also note: the original file has 1.6 MB.
After removing just simple text, the result has only 178 kB. (seems, some data has been removed too, maybe resolution of images)
Comment 5 Ulf Zibis 2020-05-03 19:43:28 UTC
(In reply to Ulf Zibis from comment #4)
> Also note: the original file has 1.6 MB.
> After removing just simple text, the result has only 178 kB. (seems, some
> data has been removed too, maybe resolution of images)

Please forget this, there was an image embedded in the removed text.
Comment 6 Bart 2020-05-03 21:45:15 UTC
I can confirm this, but I noticed something extra.

The 5 lines don't seem to loose their frame as a result of deleting the text on page 1, but as a result of saving the DOCX document as ODT. Also, I don't think that the frame is gone. 

After saving the document as ODT and opening it again, I tried to click the edges of the frame where I thought the edges were. That showed the markers of the frame. Then I right-clicked one of the markers and "Line ...". 
Please compare images
   DocumentAsDOCX-VisibleFrame-Properties-LO64.png
and
   DocumentAsODT-HiddenFrame-Properties-LO64.png

The frame is still there, just no longer visible, because the "Style" is "none" in both cases. I think it's just displayed differently for DOCX documents and ODT documents. I wonder if the LibreOffice team or the OpenOffice team made a choice in the past to do it this way.

Personally I'd like to see it if something is there. That's why I changed the "Status" to "New" and the "Importance" to "medium/enhancement". As a user, I find it confusing that I can see hidden frames in DOCX documents, but not in ODT documents.

I'm not saying that this should be changed, but can we have a reaction from the LibreOffice team?

I may chime in back later in case I get a nice suggestion of how to show hidden frames.

PS: I'm not a developer. I'm a user myself and I submitted a few bug reports. I'm trying to confirm the bugs that other people reported here.

					~~~

   Here's the version that I used:

Version: 6.4.3.2
Build ID: 747b5d0ebf89f41c860ec2a39efd7cb15b54f2d8
CPU threads: 4; OS: Linux 4.19; UI render: default; VCL: gtk3; 
Locale: en-US (en_US.UTF-8); UI-Language: en-US
Calc: threaded
Comment 7 Bart 2020-05-03 21:47:32 UTC
Created attachment 160303 [details]
DocumentAsDOCX-VisibleFrame-Properties-LO64.png
Comment 8 Bart 2020-05-03 21:48:05 UTC
Created attachment 160304 [details]
DocumentAsODT-HiddenFrame-Properties-LO64.png
Comment 9 Ulf Zibis 2020-05-03 23:16:12 UTC
Thanks for your verification.

I'm also wondering, that the first sentence (in 2 lines) is partly inside and partly outside of the more bold box.
I can't say, if this was intended.

I think, it could be helpful, if one could verify the document with Microsoft Office, to know how it should be displayed.
Comment 10 Bart 2020-05-04 00:00:12 UTC
If you are certain that the first sentence is partly inside and partly outside the more bold box and if you're also certain that that's not right, then please submit a separate question/bug/report. 

If you want to know how the document should be displayed, and if you want someone to verify the document, it's probably best to ask the person who made or modified the document.

The document was created in March this year by Verena Stenmans, and it was last modified by Helke in April this year. It's most helpful if they can clarify to you how it should be displayed. If you're not familiar with them, you may be able to find Verena here:

   Liebfrauenschüler fragten nach: Was essen Jugendliche heutzutage?
   http://www.lfs-berufskolleg-geldern.de/cms/?p=1705

I understand that your remark about the frame has been addressed. That's why I changed the status to "resolved/worksforme". The "Importance" is still "medium/enhancement".
Comment 11 Ulf Zibis 2020-05-07 15:42:15 UTC
I can't understand, why you changed the status to "resolved/worksforme", as it actually doesn't work as you can see here: attachment 160349 [details]

Wouldn't it be better, to state this report as a duplicate of bug 132687?