Description: FILEOPEN RTF: A part is marked as deleted change and should be so Steps to Reproduce: 1. Open the attached file 2. Save as RTF 3. File reload Actual Results: A part of the second page (Bozkurt-Lotus Olayı(1926) is marked as deleted Expected Results: Should be so Reproducible: Always User Profile Reset: No Additional Info: This does go properly in Version: 4.3.7.2 Build ID: 8a35821d8636a03b8bf4e15b48f59794652c68ba
Created attachment 163578 [details] Example file RTF
Created attachment 163579 [details] ODT used the create RTF
I'm confused. The steps talk about saving the document and reloading. the description about FILEOPEN. which one should I follow ?
(In reply to Xisco Faulí from comment #3) > I'm confused. The steps talk about saving the document and reloading. the > description about FILEOPEN. which one should I follow ? There are two ways. Or open the ODT and save to RTF file reload. Or open the RTF directly
(In reply to Telesto from comment #4) > (In reply to Xisco Faulí from comment #3) > > I'm confused. The steps talk about saving the document and reloading. the > > description about FILEOPEN. which one should I follow ? > > There are two ways. Or open the ODT and save to RTF file reload. Or open the > RTF directly did you tried both ways with an older version to confirm it's a regression ?
Confirm that after saving as RTF and reload part of the page 2 appear as deleted. Version: 7.0.1.2 Build ID: 7cbcfc562f6eb6708b5ff7d7397325de9e764452 CPU threads: 4; OS: Linux 5.4; UI render: default; VCL: gtk3 Locale: en-US (ro_RO.UTF-8); UI: en-US Calc: threaded Telesto said in Description: This does go properly in Version: 4.3.7.2 Build ID: 8a35821d8636a03b8bf4e15b48f59794652c68ba
I tried to bibisect this using bibisect-44max with two different approaches. 1. Open ODT, save as RTF, reload, check the part with "Bozkurt-Lotus Olayı(1926)". This was failing at the reload step for a long time, and got fixed with the following commit, but was already bad at that point. I didn't check where the failure started, I'm assuming it was still OK at that point. https://cgit.freedesktop.org/libreoffice/core/commit/?id=6b7239855d8babdc1bcc7742f79ce2df64d1e476 author Miklos Vajna <vmiklos@collabora.co.uk> 2014-10-24 16:21:51 +0200 committer Miklos Vajna <vmiklos@collabora.co.uk> 2014-10-25 09:34:43 +0200 "fdo#82859 RTF import: don't try to set CustomShapeGeometry on a TextFrame" 2. Open ODT, save as RTF in latest of bibisect-43max, during bibisecting only load the RTF, check the relevant part. This started crashing during load with the following commit. https://cgit.freedesktop.org/libreoffice/core/commit/?id=9dbf817fe5c5253fba0831aefa17575ae0ba3af1 author Luboš Luňák <l.lunak@collabora.com> 2014-10-01 19:12:47 +0200 committer Luboš Luňák <l.lunak@collabora.com> 2014-10-03 13:27:12 +0200 "handle scope of w:pPrChange and w:rPrChange properly (bnc#821804)" The crash was fixed with the below commit, but the result was already bad. https://cgit.freedesktop.org/libreoffice/core/commit/?id=013ec10d4e89e86cbd53a88058defb7e97ebaa49 author Miklos Vajna <vmiklos@collabora.co.uk> 2014-10-22 22:35:01 +0200 committer Miklos Vajna <vmiklos@collabora.co.uk> 2014-10-22 22:45:15 +0200 "i#84172 RTF import: handle nested groups inside redlines" Marking not bibisectable.
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