Description: I used find and replace dilog for finding a number and change with a time value. When i clicked undo, the cells with time replaced with 00:00:00 but not previous number. Steps to Reproduce: 1. Open Sample File.ods 2. Open find and replace dialog 3. Find a number such as “1” and replace with a time such as "10:00" 4. Undo 5. When click undo, the cells undo to 00:00:00 but not “1”. Actual Results: 5. When click undo, the cells undo to 00:00:00 but not “1”. Expected Results: 5. When click undo, the cells undo to previous value and format. Reproducible: Always User Profile Reset: Yes Additional Info: I will send a sample file for bugs reproducion.
Created attachment 192337 [details] For bug reproducion.
Created attachment 192338 [details] Steps to reproduce bug with images
This bug is similar to Bug 38982 but i can't say it is a duplicate.
Unfortunatly it does not »undo« the implizit Formatting! Select Column A and do →→RightClick→→Clear Direct Formatting
I understand, thank you. But is this a right behavior for undo? I am not an expert but also i am not a novice or beginner. Is this a bug or am i missing something?
As a simple user, I see this as a bug, just as bug 38982. I'll leave someone else to decide whether to mark as duplicate or new (or anything else). This is indeed about implicit automatic formatting not taking part of the list of actions, therefore the implicit formatting is not part of the undo actions. For instance, 1. In an empty new spreadsheet, introduce the numeric value 1 in cell A1, [ENTER]. 2. F&R 1 with 10:00. ... if you undo enough steps and then redo (but without redoing the find & replace action), then the same value (1) is re-introduced, so the implicit automatic formatting changes the format from the prior "time" to "general", displaying again the original number 1. The list of actions go from "input" to "replace" (no "format" is listed, to be part of the undo actions). That is _not_ to say that the solution is to have the format action included in the list, because maybe that would cause some unintentional consequences(?). It is up to devs to evaluate what exactly would improve the situation, if anything.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 38982 ***