Description: when I create a unique odt file from mail merge (via printing) not all the fields are replace by their values some just remain fields. I generate a two pages document, I use the same field twice in two different page headers (page styles are different) and only the second is not replaced. Fields in page body don't have any problem. This problem is not present when I create individual pdf files neither when I create individual odt files. Steps to Reproduce: 1.create a two page mailling document with field use in page headers 2.print to one file 3.open odt created Actual Results: field present in result still like in mailling Expected Results: field replaced by their values Reproducible: Always User Profile Reset: No Additional Info: Version : 6.4.6.2 Build ID : 1:6.4.6-0ubuntu0.20.04.1 Threads CPU : 12; OS : Linux 5.4; UI Render : par défaut; VCL: gtk3; Locale : fr-FR (fr_FR.UTF-8); Langue IHM : fr-FR Calc: threaded
Created attachment 166391 [details] result of merge with bug
Created attachment 166392 [details] source file
Created attachment 166393 [details] database used
Please help by testing with daily master 7,1+ from https://libreoffice.soluzioniopen.com/ and with older versions to see if this was happening always or regression from some version.
I had a crash with those samples and daily master. Please attach another sample using fields from in-built Bibliography. It's easier to test and we'll see if crash is general or related to ODS.
I reproduced with 7.2+ and this seems to be problem ever since OO. Repro for print to printer and single file, not to individual files. Related is bug 128148, sane in bug 124550. Problem with mail merge bugs is that reports are with long personal documents and databases, which is wrong. They should be using fields from in-built Bibliography. In this case proper minimal sample needs just 2 pages with different styles and headers filled with a single field from Bibliography. When printing, 1 record can be used.
*** Bug 137464 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Created attachment 170335 [details] Minimal sample ODT
(In reply to Timur from comment #6) > Problem with mail merge bugs is that reports are with long personal > documents and databases, which is wrong. They should be using fields from > in-built Bibliography. > In this case proper minimal sample needs just 2 pages with different styles > and headers filled with a single field from Bibliography. When printing, 1 > record can be used. Thanks for that hint. Just to mention it, since I was confused for a moment: The "Author" field is empty for 2nd and 3rd entry in bibliography, so it's expected that the corresponding pages for these entries in the sample doc are as well after mail merge. So maybe it's even more ideal to use fields that are non-empty for all entries in sample docs. :-) But, as mentioned in this bug, it looks incorrect that the "Author" field is not replaced on page 3 of the source document at all for any of the entries.
*** Bug 140072 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Dear pabordel, 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
I have first tested the duplicate bug #140072 with the current LibreOffice 7.5.1.2 (under Ubuntu Linux). And this one seems to be SOLVED, now. At least my description how to reproduce that bug, now generates fully correct mail merge PDF file. BUT: When I test this very bug, by mail merge printing the "minimal sample ODT" from comment #8 in this bug report, then I still DO SEE this bug. In the resulting PDF file there are still serveral occurances of "<Author>" instead of the individual content of this autor field. Conclusion: This bug IS still present. version information: Version: 7.5.1.2 (X86_64) / LibreOffice Community Build ID: fcbaee479e84c6cd81291587d2ee68cba099e129 CPU threads: 8; OS: Linux 5.15; UI render: default; VCL: gtk3 Locale: de-DE (de_DE.UTF-8); UI: en-US Calc: threaded