The "Minor interval count" parameter does not accept a value greater than 100. When working with large values on an axis, this becomes a limiting factor. Example: I have a Y-Axis scale on a line graph set to a Minimum of 0, a Maximum of 680,000, and a major interval set to Automatic (100,000). A useful "Minor interval count" in this case would be 20,000. Expected Behavior: A value of 20,000 should be accepted as entered. Actual Behavior: Any value greater than 100 is reset to exactly 100 upon exiting the input field. The maximum value should scale to a value relative to the manually-entered or automatically-generated "Maximum" axis value. In this case, a maximum value of 680,000 should allow values greater than 100, but no greater than the Maximum value. Alternatively, consider using the "Major interval" value as the maximum allowed value, understanding there may be some perceived end-user value in having a minor interval be GREATER than a major interval.
It should be noted that the observed behavior in Excel 2016 is to automatically raise the Major interval to be equal to the input Minor interval, irrespective of the Maximum value for the axis. Setting a Major interval smaller than an existing Minor interval resets Minor back to "Auto" or automatic scale. For example: If the major scale is set to 6500 and one attempts to enter a minor scale of 6600, the major scale is automatically set to 6600 to match the user input on the minor scale. If the user then enters 6500 in the major scale, the minor scale is adjusted to Auto (in this case, the value was 1300).
This behavior persists in the latest release (7.2.2.2).
I confirm and it seems useful to remove the limitation. Arch Linux 64-bit Version: 7.5.0.0.alpha0+ (X86_64) / LibreOffice Community Build ID: 45d1fca81991f0d6837c98d6be6fe0d21d566fa5 CPU threads: 8; OS: Linux 6.0; UI render: default; VCL: kf5 (cairo+xcb) Locale: fi-FI (fi_FI.UTF-8); UI: en-US Calc: threaded Built on 18 November 2022
Dear Concerned User, 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