Created attachment 189203 [details] List issues in direct formatting The remarkable spotlight features introduced in Writer 7.6 (kudos to Jim Raykowsky) is very handy to help in spotting direct format issues, even those issues not covered by the "Clean Direct Formatting" (Ctrl+M) command, which applies only to character formatting. The image atached shows the issue with lists (taken from the file WG7617-Fields.odt) * The first and second paragraphs of the list (1 and 2) were cleaned. * The second an other list entries has direct formatting issues, indicated by the hash in the spotlight indicator and a different indent of the paragraph, even when the paragraph style is the same (#67). The direct formatting is actually a list applied on top of the "Numbering 1" paragraph style (#67) which has its own list associated ("Numbering 1" homonym). To clean the list DF, I had to place cursor on the list and the cycle-click on the corresponding list icon on the top toolbar until the paragraph extra list is removed. Object: Extend the "Clean Direct Formatting" command (swriter/.uno:ResetAttributes) to clean lists as well. By removing the extra list on top of a paragraph with list style By saving the paragraph list number if the list is restarted at this location.
(In reply to Olivier Hallot from comment #0) > taken from the file WG7617-Fields.odt Where can I find this document?
Created attachment 189224 [details] Source file with issue
The list labels (1. 2. 3. or 1) 2) 3) etc.) are always applied (or acknowledged) as CDF. Happens also for new documents. Mike, are List Id and List Label String CDF or just a variable attribute of the paragraph? And in any case, can we suppress the false attribution on the highlighting, Jim?
(In reply to Heiko Tietze from comment #3) > Mike, are List Id and List Label String CDF or just a variable attribute of > the paragraph? Of the paragraph. Showing as character formatting is a bug.
I just discovered that when you clean the lists (bullet or numbers) so no hashed color on the paragraph style, then on saving and reloading the document the hash is back.
So bug, no UX needed.
Dear Olivier Hallot, 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