Created attachment 54824 [details] File has the issue described above. If one adds an alphabetical index to a ODT document with concordance file and modifies the concordance file entries several times, then all keyword occurences in the text will get duplicate "alphabetical-index-mark" entries like that: <text:alphabetical-index-auto-mark-file xlink:href="../keywords.sdi" /> <text:p text:style-name="Standard"> <text:alphabetical-index-mark text:string-value="Test1" /> <text:alphabetical-index-mark text:string-value="Test1" /> <text:alphabetical-index-mark text:string-value="Test1" /> Name1 </text:p> This behaviour may easily blow up the document and makes it hard to delete obsolete index entries.
cannot reproduce with 3.5.0beta2 - please give a more detailed description on how to trigger the bug. I did: * create new document * insert blindtext/dummytext * Insert index, check concordance checkmark, create a new file * add "Dilemma" as index entry (german blindtext contains that word) and closed the dialog, index is entered, the Dilemma in the text is flagged accordingly. * save the file and verify that the index-mark is written to the document only once. * Use edit index from the context-menu on the index, choose "Edit file" from the concordance-file button, change the ignore case toggle of the dilemma entry, close both dialogs. * save the file and verify the xml → still only one index-mark. * use edit index from the context-menu, choose edit file from the concordance-file button, add another word "Dunkelheit", apply & close the dialogs * other word is added to the index and flagged in the document * save and verify the xml → still only one entry on dilemma, only one entry on Dunkelheit. Thus → needmoreinfo (please also report back when you cannot reproduce yourself anymore in the current version)
The description provided in last comment exactly describes the steps for triggering the bug. but there are two additions: * add "dilemma" as index entry and "Dilemma" as alternative entry. * after saving and checking the XML you should close and re-open the ODT document before applying modifications to concordance file (It seems that the problem does not occur otherwise). I can confirm that the problem still exists in LibreOffice 3.5 Beta 2.
Never confirmed by QA - moving to UNCONFIRMED.
TESTING on Ubuntu 14.04 + LO Version: 4.5.0.0.alpha0+ Build ID: 5c60dab390d66a4d5abeaf548efecf3913b90839 TinderBox: Linux-rpm_deb-x86_64@46-TDF, Branch:master, Time: 2014-12-31_00:20:30 Locale: en_US (In reply to Christian Lohmaier from comment #1) > cannot reproduce with 3.5.0beta2 - please give a more detailed description > on how to trigger the bug. > > I did: > * create new document > * insert blindtext/dummytext (using 'dt', then <F3>) > * Insert index, check concordance checkmark, create a new file I'm not sure where to find the 'concordance checkmark'... pfux: Are you still seeing this problem with modern builds of LibreOffice? Status -> NEEDINFO (Please change status to UNCONFIRMED after you report back)
The issue is still there in LibreOffice 4.3.5.2 on MacOS X 10.10.2. It can be easily be reproduced following the description in previous comments. Fragment of the content.xml <text:p text:style-name="P1"> <text:alphabetical-index-mark text:string-value="Test 1" /> <text:alphabetical-index-mark text:string-value="Test 1" /> <text:alphabetical-index-mark text:string-value="Test 1" /> <text:alphabetical-index-mark text:string-value="Test 1" />Test1</text:p>
Took a while to work this one out. Reproduced with the following exact steps: With language set to English, 1. New Writer document 2. Type "dt<F3>" 3. Insert - Indexes and Tables - Indexes and Tables... 4. Set Type: Alphabetical Index, Concordance file: Yes 5. Still within the dialog, beneath the checkbox for "Concordance file", select File - New 6. Close the dialogs and save the document (select .fodt to make it easier later) 7. Close the document 8. Reload the document 9. Context menu - "Edit Index/Table" on the index that was inserted 10. Within the dialog, beneath the checkbox for "Concordance file", select File - Edit 11. Add an entry with Search term: greenbacks, Alternative term: Greenbacks, Match case: Yes 13. Save the document 14. Close the document 15. Reload the document 16. Context menu - "Edit Index/Table" on the index that was inserted 17. Within the dialog, beneath the checkbox for "Concordance file", select File - Edit 18. Add an entry with Search term: crook, Alternative term: Crook, Match case: Yes 19. Save the document 20. Examine the document's XML -> the <text:alphabetical-index-mark text:string-value="Greenbacks"/> is duplicated Setting to NEW
** Please read this message in its entirety before responding ** 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 on a currently supported version of LibreOffice (5.0.5 or 5.1.2 https://www.libreoffice.org/download/ If the bug is present, please leave a comment that includes the version of LibreOffice and your operating system, and any changes you see in the bug behavior If the bug is NOT present, please set the bug's Status field to RESOLVED-WORKSFORME and leave a short comment that includes your version of LibreOffice and Operating System 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) http://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: http://webchat.freenode.net/?channels=libreoffice-qa Thank you for your help! -- The LibreOffice QA Team This NEW Message was generated on: 2016-04-16
Re-tested with 5.0.5.2 under OS X 10.11.4: Bug is still present, same issue as described in previous comments.
** Please read this message in its entirety before responding ** 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 on a currently supported version of LibreOffice (5.2.7 or 5.3.3 https://www.libreoffice.org/download/ If the bug is present, please leave a comment that includes the version of LibreOffice and your operating system, and any changes you see in the bug behavior If the bug is NOT present, please set the bug's Status field to RESOLVED-WORKSFORME and leave a short comment that includes your version of LibreOffice and Operating System 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) http://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: http://webchat.freenode.net/?channels=libreoffice-qa Thank you for helping us make LibreOffice even better for everyone! Warm Regards, QA Team MassPing-UntouchedBug-20170522
Looks there in 6.2+.
Dear fox.talk, 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 http://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://kiwiirc.com/nextclient/irc.freenode.net/#libreoffice-qa Thank you for helping us make LibreOffice even better for everyone! Warm Regards, QA Team MassPing-UntouchedBug
I can't confirm any duplicate expression in 7.1. Version: 7.1.0.0.alpha0+ Build ID: e2f4e65a7b8024c00b049eebf0d87637efda7f24 CPU threads: 4; OS: Linux 5.4; UI render: default; VCL: gtk3 Locale: en-US (ro_RO.UTF-8); UI: en-US Calc: threaded
Dear fox.talk, This bug has been in NEEDINFO status with no change for at least 6 months. Please provide the requested information as soon as possible and mark the bug as UNCONFIRMED. Due to regular bug tracker maintenance, if the bug is still in NEEDINFO status with no change in 30 days the QA team will close the bug as INSUFFICIENTDATA due to lack of needed information. For more information about our NEEDINFO policy please read the wiki located here: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/QA/Bugzilla/Fields/Status/NEEDINFO If you have already provided the requested information, please mark the bug as UNCONFIRMED so that the QA team knows that the bug is ready to be confirmed. Thank you for helping us make LibreOffice even better for everyone! Warm Regards, QA Team MassPing-NeedInfo-Ping
10 years later - still not fixed.
(In reply to fox.talk from comment #14) > 10 years later - still not fixed. Good that you are following. But please add exact version you tested with. As for 10 years, it takes a volunteer, so a bug can be fixed in few days or not in 20 years.
Dear fox.talk, 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
The bug is still present. Re-validated using: Version: 7.4.6.2 / LibreOffice Community Build ID: 5b1f5509c2decdade7fda905e3e1429a67acd63d CPU threads: 8; OS: Mac OS X 13.3.1; UI render: default; VCL: osx Locale: de-DE (de_DE.UTF-8); UI: de-DE Calc: threaded
Additionally I recognized a strange effect (see the discussion in this german forum: https://de.openoffice.info/viewtopic.php?t=76692): after using a concordance file there are duplicated index marks and in a macro the method .DocumentIndexMarks shows more index marks the really exist. If I dispose all index marks and then recreate the index with a concordance file all works fine (no duplicates, correct .DocumentIndexMarks). Therefore I guess that the bug only (?) occurs if there are index marks created manually and then using a concordance file. Maybe it should be a feature to keep then manual index marks but it leads to chaos. By the way: I wasn't able to figure out if there is a difference between a index mark created manually or by concordance file. I guess there is no.