Bug 53308 - Date input
Summary: Date input
Status: RESOLVED DUPLICATE of bug 52240
Alias: None
Product: LibreOffice
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Calc (show other bugs)
Version:
(earliest affected)
3.6.0.4 release
Hardware: Other Windows (All)
: medium normal
Assignee: Not Assigned
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks: 52240
  Show dependency tree / graph
 
Reported: 2012-08-09 20:52 UTC by Swimmi
Modified: 2012-09-25 07:17 UTC (History)
1 user (show)

See Also:
Crash report or crash signature:

Attachments
Add an attachment (proposed patch, testcase, etc.)

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Swimmi 2012-08-09 20:52:09 UTC 
When writing (short date-input) 09/08 on numeric keyboard in recent versions follows the correct date in the input-field - in this case 09.08.2012 (German-Date). This was a feature like in excel for a very quick input of many dates in the sheet...
In this 3.6 version it don't change to the correct date - it stays the 09/08.
That means you have now a lot of work to get in new dates in the spread-sheet. This is a big bug!
Comment 1 billhook 2012-08-09 23:58:34 UTC 
FYI: This feature has been changed for the 3.6 release.

http://erack.org/blog/archives/8-LibreOffice-date-acceptance-patterns.html

It sounds like what you are seeing is intentional.
Comment 2 Rainer Bielefeld Retired 2012-09-25 04:22:36 UTC 
This problem should be fixed with fixes for "Bug 52240 - [Task] EDITING:
Incomplete Date values are no longer detected"

I mark this one INVALID because too much info is missing.

@Reporter
Please feel free to reopen this Bug if you still see that problem with LibO
3.6.2, but then please contribute complete useful info due to
http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/BugReport> (Localization, sample document,
...).

WFM, I can add an appropriate recognition pattern, and I do not have the time to find out whether this one might be DUP of an other one (or vice versa).
Comment 3 Johannes Weberhofer 2012-09-25 07:17:07 UTC 

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 52240 ***