Created attachment 170583 [details]
Fonts used in doc

Created attachment 170584 [details]
anonymized document to reproduce bug

no repro in

Version: 7.2.0.0.alpha0+ (x64) / LibreOffice Community
Build ID: 43f4769ae537310a6fe6a1edfbc6687cc26fd996
CPU threads: 4; OS: Windows 10.0 Build 18363; UI render: Skia/Raster; VCL: win
Locale: ru-RU (ru_RU); UI: ru-RU
Calc: threaded

Reproduced today with 
Version: 7.2.0.0.alpha0+ / LibreOffice Community
Build ID: 43f4769ae537310a6fe6a1edfbc6687cc26fd996
CPU threads: 8; OS: Linux 3.10; UI render: default; VCL: gtk3
Locale: en-GB (en_GB.utf8); UI: en-US
TinderBox: Linux-rpm_deb-x86_64@86-TDF, Branch:master, Time: 2021-03-20_00:16:48
Calc: threaded

(In reply to Georgy from comment #5)
> (In reply to Roman Kuznetsov from comment #3)
> > no repro in
> > 
> 
> Did you install font used in document prior to open document and update
> index?

Yes

Created attachment 170610 [details]
How it looks after index update (Linux)

Created attachment 170611 [details]
LO 7.2 devel on Windows. 4 last TOC items are not visible.

Created attachment 170613 [details]
This is how TOC should look.

This is how it should be after TOC update. To fix it press enter at the end of last visible TOC item. Then other items will become visible. Removed empty paragraphs between TOC items.

(In reply to Roman Kuznetsov from comment #6)
> (In reply to Georgy from comment #5)
> > (In reply to Roman Kuznetsov from comment #3)
> > > no repro in
> > > 
> > 
> > Did you install font used in document prior to open document and update
> > index?
> 
> Yes

I added some screenshots. Are my results different from yours?

I reproduced with Lo 6.3 and 7.2+ in Windows. Different with 6.2.
I didn't confirm because sample needs to be minimal, not 90 pages, and with clearly marked text, like "heading not in ToC", "previous heading in ToC", instead of hfghjxfbmnxgkmcyv which are hard to follow.

(In reply to Timur from comment #11)
> I reproduced with Lo 6.3 and 7.2+ in Windows. Different with 6.2.
> I didn't confirm because sample needs to be minimal, not 90 pages, and with
> clearly marked text, like "heading not in ToC", "previous heading in ToC",
> instead of hfghjxfbmnxgkmcyv which are hard to follow.

I don't know what code causes this behaviour. Initial document was 213 pages long so it is already smaller than initial document. 
You propose to leave it UNCONFIRMED as if there is no bug and at the same time you have reproduced it?

(In reply to Timur from comment #11)
> I reproduced with Lo 6.3 and 7.2+ in Windows. Different with 6.2.
> I didn't confirm because sample needs to be minimal, not 90 pages, and with
> clearly marked text, like "heading not in ToC", "previous heading in ToC",
> instead of hfghjxfbmnxgkmcyv which are hard to follow.

New bug name you added is wrong. Both on Windows and Linux parts of TOC become completely invisible. 
On Windows it is 4 invisible TOC items.
On Linux it is 1 invisible TOC item.

Georgy, please be efficient. Do not quote full posts. 
Irrelevant that original document was 213 pages, 91 is too long. 
Instead of further discussion, just do as asked, prepare minimal document with the same behavior. 
Steps should not be "part disappears" but precisely "Heading not in ToC 1"....
Only then we will see report clearly, instead of too many messages, which indicate that it's not clear enough to be tested further.

(In reply to Timur from comment #14)
> Instead of further discussion, just do as asked, prepare minimal document
> with the same behavior. 
Unfortunately, the bug has not yet been reproduced on a smaller document, but the bug is consistently reproduced on this document. The size of the file does not negate the fact that a bug on this file is regularly discovered.
Since the description of the LibreOffice program does not indicate that there is a limit on the number of pages in a document, a document of 91 pages should be processed correctly. Therefore, you can either recognize a bug, or indicate in the documentation that LibreOffice Writer is not designed to work with files of this size.

Of course that Lo can work with any size. I confirm the bug. 
But hardly will any volunteer want to deal with this large and not clearly marked document.

Dear Georgy Litvinov,

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