Bug 144790 - FILEOPEN DOCX Paragraph with footnote and “Keep with next paragraph” OFF does not cause soft page break
Summary: FILEOPEN DOCX Paragraph with footnote and “Keep with next paragraph” OFF does...
Status: NEW
Alias: None
Product: LibreOffice
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Writer (show other bugs)
Version:
(earliest affected)
4.2.0.4 release
Hardware: All All
: low minor
Assignee: Not Assigned
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords: bibisectRequest, filter:docx, regression
Depends on:
Blocks: DOCX-Footnote-Endnote
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2021-09-29 09:36 UTC by NISZ LibreOffice Team
Modified: 2024-02-08 09:30 UTC (History)
5 users (show)

See Also:
Crash report or crash signature:


Attachments
Example file from Word (25.52 KB, application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document)
2021-09-29 09:36 UTC, NISZ LibreOffice Team
Details
Example file from Word without the footnote (25.30 KB, application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document)
2021-09-29 09:36 UTC, NISZ LibreOffice Team
Details
Screenshot of the original document side by side in Word and Writer (7.07 KB, application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document)
2021-09-29 09:36 UTC, NISZ LibreOffice Team
Details
Screenshot of the document without footnote side by side in Word and Writer (159.20 KB, image/png)
2021-09-29 09:37 UTC, NISZ LibreOffice Team
Details

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description NISZ LibreOffice Team 2021-09-29 09:36:09 UTC
Created attachment 175346 [details]
Example file from Word

This is minimized from the example file of bug 136194
The paragraph between the two numbered lists contains a footnote and the “Keep with next paragraph” property turned OFF, while other paragraphs before/after it have it ON.
In Word this setup causes the second list to begin on the second page, while in Writer it does not.
Removing the footnote in Word causes the second list to be on the first page as well.
Turning ON the “Keep with next paragraph” property of the separator paragraph also lays out the second list on the first page in Word.

Steps to reproduce:
    1. Open attached document

Actual results:
The second list is on the first page.

Expected results:
The second list should begin on a new page.

LibreOffice details:
Version: 7.3.0.0.alpha0+ (x64) / LibreOffice Community
Build ID: b60b6bfaafa1315e07108dba50f016975b619c59
CPU threads: 4; OS: Windows 10.0 Build 18363; UI render: Skia/Raster; VCL: win
Locale: hu-HU (hu_HU); UI: en-US
Calc: CL

Also in 5.0, 4.1
But not yet in 4.0.
Comment 1 NISZ LibreOffice Team 2021-09-29 09:36:33 UTC
Created attachment 175347 [details]
Example file from Word without the footnote
Comment 2 NISZ LibreOffice Team 2021-09-29 09:36:51 UTC
Created attachment 175348 [details]
Screenshot of the original document side by side in Word and Writer
Comment 3 NISZ LibreOffice Team 2021-09-29 09:37:09 UTC
Created attachment 175349 [details]
Screenshot of the document without footnote side by side in Word and Writer
Comment 4 Timur 2021-09-29 11:56:43 UTC
I don't see this as a bug, LO behavior makes more sense to me. 
If DOCX is resaved in LO, it opens the same, so save seems OK.
If DOCX is saved as DOC in MSO, it opens 1 page (behaves like LO). Meaning MSO is not consistent.
If DOCX is saved as DOC in LO, it opens 1 page in MSO, meaning it's same and OK.

Only bugs I see here is if DOCX is saved as DOC in LO. Should be checked if exist.
1. It opens 2 pages in LO, although 1 page in MSO, so it's fileopen RT. 
2. Text from 1.2 opens as 1.1 both in LO and MSO, so it's filesave problem.
Comment 5 Timur 2021-09-29 12:26:45 UTC
 .. and problem 3 for DOC:
3. reference is NOK from DOC both LO and MSO created, so fileopen. Bug 49195.
Comment 6 Dieter 2022-08-31 06:12:43 UTC
NISZ Libre Office Team, please react on comment 4 from Timur.

=> NEEDINFO
Comment 7 NISZ LibreOffice Team 2022-08-31 07:23:40 UTC
Hello

When you talked about MSO not consistent, I think that's not true because the DOC and DOCX not the same extension and standard so It doesn't have to work the same.
That's why the MSO won't be inconsistent but it is only my opinion.
Although that's true if you save the Docx attachment in LO with Doc extansion then the word won't open it the same like LO.

1. In LO the second list starts 1.1 like the first one, and the first element of list is on the first page the other ones on the second.
Plus after the first list in the end of that text ("... see Figure 1.2") shows an error message. I think because the second list numbers changed. 
2. In Word is shown only on one page but the text after the second list is not fully the end of text is cut off.
3. If you want to show the document like in MSO, then it should be corrected. 
I recommend that LO should originally use the Docx extension looks because this extansion the newer one for MSO and nowadays not many of people use Doc.
I think people want to see their document looks the same in both software.
Comment 8 QA Administrators 2022-09-01 03:50:00 UTC Comment hidden (obsolete)
Comment 9 Buovjaga 2023-01-31 12:34:33 UTC
The problem was not yet in 4.1, but appeared in 4.2. I bibisected it with linux-42max, but the result seems unrelated as it only touches makefiles:
https://git.libreoffice.org/core/commit/b8002169336b6b7597d32755e41fa3dc2688539e
remove INPATH and PROEXT

I checked by comparing the commit and the previous one.
Comment 10 Dieter 2024-02-08 09:26:15 UTC
(In reply to Buovjaga from comment #9)
> The problem was not yet in 4.1, but appeared in 4.2.

So you confirm the problem? Let's change status to NEW then. Please change it back to UNCONFIRMED wit a short reasoning, if I misunderstood something.
Comment 11 Buovjaga 2024-02-08 09:30:23 UTC
(In reply to Dieter from comment #10)
> (In reply to Buovjaga from comment #9)
> > The problem was not yet in 4.1, but appeared in 4.2.
> 
> So you confirm the problem? Let's change status to NEW then. Please change
> it back to UNCONFIRMED wit a short reasoning, if I misunderstood something.

I didn't change the status, because Timur disputed the bugginess in comment 4.