Description: The Format Table in LO Writer 7.0.0.1 dont wokt the template from Version 6.4.5. A Table dont show the corret distance to next .... In Version it is correct. Steps to Reproduce: 1.open the sendet tample in a new document 2. fields in table are to big to the next field 3. Actual Results: fields from table are to big to next line... distance dant reduce... can onli reduce format of script Expected Results: open die Field correct Reproducible: Always User Profile Reset: No Additional Info: [Information automatically included from LibreOffice] Locale: de Module: TextDocument [Information guessed from browser] OS: Windows 10 OS is 64bit: yes
Created attachment 162964 [details] template working correct in LO 6.4.5. and early Version LO 7.0.0.1 fields from table are to big.
Created attachment 163100 [details] Comparison LibreOffice 6.4 (left) VS LibreOffice 7.1 master (right)
I can't reproduce it in Version: 7.1.0.0.alpha0+ Build ID: d851a02df57ab378ed0cc6d9362516de09c3279c CPU threads: 4; OS: Linux 4.19; UI render: default; VCL: gtk3 Locale: en-US (en_US.UTF-8); UI: en-US Calc: threaded Please, attach a screenshot showing how it looks for you
Created attachment 163152 [details] Without error Thats correct
Created attachment 163153 [details] Error Table in 7.0.0
Created attachment 163154 [details] Without error
Created attachment 163155 [details] Template to test it
Created attachment 163156 [details] Without error in LO 6.4.5
[Automated Action] NeedInfo-To-Unconfirmed
I confirm the behaviour: Row height of the table changed from 6.4 to 7.0. Line Space is in both cases 1,5; setting of row height is "Fit to size" So for me the question is, if Fit to size should respect height of page header (as it does in LO 6.4 or line space (as it does in 7.0) I would expect, that table size respects height of page header, so I would treat it as a bug. cc: Design-Team for (alternative) opinions Version: 7.0.0.0.beta2 (x64) Build ID: 1c213561a365b5666167321de68c9977500c9612 CPU threads: 4; OS: Windows 10.0 Build 19041; UI render: Skia/Raster; VCL: win Locale: de-DE (de_DE); UI: en-GB Calc: CL
Yes... I belive it is a error. In Version 7.0.0.2 works it.
(In reply to Mike Silbermann from comment #11) > In Version 7.0.0.2 works it. Very good. So lets close as WORKSFORME.
The use case is weak, placing a table in the page header is bad design, and I'm having a hard time to reproduce the issue with the complex layout. Dieter, can you make a minimum non-viable example? In general, we have "Autofit height" for the page header as well as "Fit to size" for row height. So everything should be possible. Set to WFM meanwhile, perfect.
(In reply to Heiko Tietze from comment #13) > Dieter, can you make a minimum non-viable example? Sorry Heiko, what do you mean with "non-viable example"?
(In reply to Dieter from comment #14) > (In reply to Heiko Tietze from comment #13) > > Dieter, can you make a minimum non-viable example? > > Sorry Heiko, what do you mean with "non-viable example"? The opposite of minimum viable product, something that is just as little broken as possible. Silly joke, admitted. WFM is perfectly fine for me.