Description: See attached. =MATCH("2",{2;3},0) gives #N/A (incorrect) =MATCH("2",C4:D4,0) gives 1 (correct) if C4=2 and D4=3 Steps to Reproduce: See attached Actual Results: See attached Expected Results: See attached Reproducible: Always User Profile Reset: No Additional Info: I need the first parameter to MATCH be a string because in my application it is a regular expression. Version: 7.3.0.3 (x64) / LibreOffice Community Build ID: 0f246aa12d0eee4a0f7adcefbf7c878fc2238db3 CPU threads: 4; OS: Windows 10.0 Build 19044; UI render: Skia/Raster; VCL: win Locale: en-GB (en_GB); UI: en-GB Calc: threaded
Created attachment 178556 [details] Exhibits bug 147669
Note also, that it works with =MATCH("2";{"2"|"3"};0) => it gives the expected 1. MATCH with MatchType = 0 is defined in ODFF 1.3 [1] differently compared to MatchType = 1 and MatchType = -1; for the two latter, there's explicit "If Search is of type Text and the value found is of type Number, the #N/A Error is returned", while for the former, no such clause exists, implying that the return value of 1 is really expected here. [1] https://docs.oasis-open.org/office/OpenDocument/v1.3/OpenDocument-v1.3-part4-formula.html#MATCH
Dear David Lynch, 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
Bug present in: Version: 24.2.4.2 (X86_64) / LibreOffice Community Build ID: 51a6219feb6075d9a4c46691dcfe0cd9c4fff3c2 CPU threads: 12; OS: Windows 10.0 Build 22631; UI render: Skia/Raster; VCL: win Locale: en-GB (en_GB); UI: en-GB Calc: CL threaded
Considering that other inline arrays are working with the same MATCH() function, the problem is not exactly the use of inline array, but rather the difference in format (number vs text). In some sense, it is similar to other reports regarding lookup functions (including MATCH), in which the lookup/search is performed depending on (cell) format, not on (cell) value (and not restricted to inline arrays). See for example tdf#160893.
MATCH and [HVX]LOOKUP never consider cell format and should not. What happens however is that if the search criterion can be interpreted as a number (which a date string is also) a numeric lookup is performed.
(In reply to Mike Kaganski from comment #2) > MATCH with MatchType = 0 is defined in ODFF 1.3 [1] differently compared to > MatchType = 1 and MatchType = -1; for the two latter, there's explicit "If > Search is of type Text and the value found is of type Number, the #N/A Error > is returned", while for the former, no such clause exists, implying that the > return value of 1 is really expected here. I take this back. The explanations about sorting order in the standard clarify the "If Search is of type Text and the value found is of type Number" clauses in 1/-1 cases: it may happen, that with sorted search, the value *greater than* the numeric Search may happen to be a text after the numeric block. For that, the clauses explain what to do. On the other case, the 0 case is "exact" search, for which, the found value must be equal to the Search - so the clause about different types is not applicable. So it's up to the settings of the program, not to the standard.
(In reply to Mike Kaganski from comment #7) > So it's up to the settings of the program, not to the standard. Do you mean settings that can be configured by common users? If yes, which settings?
(In reply to ady from comment #8) > Do you mean settings that can be configured by common users? If yes, which > settings? I mean, that the standard does not itself require the behavior wanted here. So it is up to the application, which *may* have settings like Options->Calc->Formula->Detailed Calculation settings->Details->Conversion from text to number; and it's up to the application to either use that setting for this case, or not. In essence, my comment 7 was to undo the "this is a bug that violates the ODF standard" claim of comment 2.