There was a recent checkin with the message: fdo#51777: add a hack for 1 twip DOUBLE borders: Arguably such annoyingly thin double borders don't make much sense anyway, because they're essentially 2 hairlines with ~no space between, but unfortunately older LO versions are able to create them; since the refactoring in 2d045cdb69176b280812dda0b813371cf1ac72e2, which changed the BorderWidthImpl::Get* methods to return 0 due to rounding, they were ignored at least in the HTML import, which is a regression. So add a special purpose hack that essentially rounds up the first line to 1 but not the other lines so the visual result is a hairline single border. I think it would be nicer if, upon opening a document, LO presented a dialog saying something along the lines of: [dialog] LibreOffice has some concerns about your document. Please address these if you can. [scrollbox] [entry 1] Objects were found with double borders less than [convert twips to mm, * 100] 2% of a millimetre in width. These will not be visible and may constitute an authoring error. What would you like to do? (•) Remove borders (Recommended) [i think the default should be to clean up the document] ( ) Make no change [second option maintains document load‐>save integrity] ( ) Convert to single border of minimum width ( ) Increase border width to minimum for double border [other entries for different concerns that aren't necessarily errors] [/scrollbox] [buttons] Make No Changes OK [/dialog] The (Recommended) option is always number 1 in the radio group for that concern, and is pre‐selected. The "Make No Changes" button acts as if option 2 was selected for each concern.
This is an enhancemente request, therefore changed Importance field accordingly.
Honestly adding code to handle this one special case seems a bit unnecessary to me but requesting additional advice
My intent was that it would become a place for other, future issues to be documented (missing fonts, and so on). It is something that the other office packages all do.
Ah fair enough - then this is in fact a duplicate of a bug. This bug was reported first but the other one is more general and I think a bit easier to follow. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 68489 ***