Description: Undo produces different number of pages (large view/ lots of image anchored) Steps to Reproduce: 1. Open the attached file 2. Update index to get a proper page count 3. Go to the bottom 4. Select from bottom to +/- middle of the document 5. Press Backspace 6. Undo 7. Update index an check page count Actual Results: Different page number from start (a different between versions) Expected Results: A little more stability would be nice Reproducible: Always User Profile Reset: No Additional Info: Version: 7.1.0.0.alpha0+ (x64) Build ID: c48e4d795e37f23b71d647247590807ab9e52223 CPU threads: 4; OS: Windows 6.3 Build 9600; UI render: Skia/Raster; VCL: win Locale: nl-NL (nl_NL); UI: en-US Calc: CL
Created attachment 162800 [details] Example file
I can't confirm it with Version: 7.0.3.1 (x64) Build ID: d7547858d014d4cf69878db179d326fc3483e082 CPU threads: 4; OS: Windows 10.0 Build 19042; UI render: Skia/Raster; VCL: win Locale: de-DE (de_DE); UI: de-DE Calc: threaded Document has always 595 pages
looks fine indeed Version: 7.1.0.0.alpha1+ (x64) Build ID: ec1f4d3253963ac16d638734ac70dde033e82154 CPU threads: 4; OS: Windows 6.3 Build 9600; UI render: Skia/Raster; VCL: win Locale: nl-NL (nl_NL); UI: en-US Calc: CL Expect being pretty slow on the second update index step
Created attachment 166908 [details] Example file 1. Retry (as I notice it again) 2. Open the attached file 3. Update index -> 74 pages will be 71 (looks OK) 4. CTRL+Z -> result 80 pages 5. Update Index 74 pages
(In reply to Telesto from comment #4) > 1. Retry (as I notice it again) > 2. Open the attached file > 3. Update index -> 74 pages will be 71 (looks OK) 75 pags will be 71 > 4. CTRL+Z -> result 80 pages result 79 pages > 5. Update Index 74 pages 71 pages So I confirm the behaviour, but I'm not sure, if this is a sufficient bug report. What causes the different number of pages?I don't have the tme for further investigations. So I change status to NEW, but perhaps we can get a third opinion. Version: 7.0.3.1 (x64) Build ID: d7547858d014d4cf69878db179d326fc3483e082 CPU threads: 4; OS: Windows 10.0 Build 19042; UI render: Skia/Raster; VCL: win Locale: de-DE (de_DE); UI: en-GB Calc: threaded
I would go for randomly splitting footnotes, pushing images around (anchoring).. Somehow the result is different depending on they way things are done And there is they lovely timing aspect.. so depends on how fast everything being processed and such.
Adding Michael Stahl > So I confirm the behaviour, but I'm not sure, if this is a sufficient bug > report. What causes the different number of pages?I don't have the tme for > further investigations. > > So I change status to NEW, but perhaps we can get a third opinion. I'm betting on attempt to layout footnotes + timing factor at undo (or they layout cache) Anyhow the exact steps can't be used in older versions (as undo is blocked for update index). It's already broken Version: 6.4.0.0.beta1+ (x64) Build ID: 20be5cd0bdc57d812bf34a2debfe48caa51de881 CPU threads: 4; OS: Windows 6.3 Build 9600; UI render: GL; VCL: win; Locale: nl-NL (nl_NL); UI-Language: en-US Calc: CL can't be reproduced with 6.3 and older because lacking undo steps Version: 6.3.0.0.alpha0+ Build ID: da881f38c088c439f034e340bbbb4ca53e67389f CPU threads: 4; OS: Windows 6.3; UI render: default; VCL: win; Locale: nl-NL (nl_NL); UI-Language: en-US Calc: CL
Dear Telesto, To make sure we're focusing on the bugs that affect our users today, LibreOffice QA is asking bug reporters and confirmers to retest open, confirmed bugs which have not been touched for over a year. There have been thousands of bug fixes and commits since anyone checked on this bug report. During that time, it's possible that the bug has been fixed, or the details of the problem have changed. We'd really appreciate your help in getting confirmation that the bug is still present. If you have time, please do the following: Test to see if the bug is still present with the latest version of LibreOffice from https://www.libreoffice.org/download/ If the bug is present, please leave a comment that includes the information from Help - About LibreOffice. If the bug is NOT present, please set the bug's Status field to RESOLVED-WORKSFORME and leave a comment that includes the information from Help - About LibreOffice. Please DO NOT Update the version field Reply via email (please reply directly on the bug tracker) Set the bug's Status field to RESOLVED - FIXED (this status has a particular meaning that is not appropriate in this case) If you want to do more to help you can test to see if your issue is a REGRESSION. To do so: 1. Download and install oldest version of LibreOffice (usually 3.3 unless your bug pertains to a feature added after 3.3) from https://downloadarchive.documentfoundation.org/libreoffice/old/ 2. Test your bug 3. Leave a comment with your results. 4a. If the bug was present with 3.3 - set version to 'inherited from OOo'; 4b. If the bug was not present in 3.3 - add 'regression' to keyword Feel free to come ask questions or to say hello in our QA chat: https://web.libera.chat/?settings=#libreoffice-qa Thank you for helping us make LibreOffice even better for everyone! Warm Regards, QA Team MassPing-UntouchedBug
RESOLVED WORKSFORME with Version: 7.4.2.3 (x64) / LibreOffice Community Build ID: 382eef1f22670f7f4118c8c2dd222ec7ad009daf CPU threads: 4; OS: Windows 10.0 Build 19045; UI render: Skia/Raster; VCL: win Locale: de-DE (de_DE); UI: en-GB Calc: CL 1. Open attachment 166908 [details] 2. Update index -> 75 pages will be 72 3. CTRL+Z -> result 75 pages 4. Update index -> again 72 pages