Bug 54067 - UI: Base FILESAVE semantics confusing & inconsistent
Summary: UI: Base FILESAVE semantics confusing & inconsistent
Status: NEW
Alias: None
Product: LibreOffice
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Base (show other bugs)
(earliest affected)
Inherited From OOo
Hardware: Other Windows (All)
: medium major
Assignee: Not Assigned
Depends on:
Blocks: Save
  Show dependency treegraph
Reported: 2012-08-26 05:20 UTC by Rainer Bielefeld Retired
Modified: 2021-12-03 04:26 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

See Also:
Crash report or crash signature:
Regression By:


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Rainer Bielefeld Retired 2012-08-26 05:20:47 UTC
Steps how to reproduce with "LibreOffice  German UI/Locale [Build-ID:  e29a214] on German WIN7 Home Premium (64bit):

0. Close LibO, download Attachment 65585 [details] of  Bug 53527
1. in WIN file explorere created some copies of the document for later
2. Launch LibO
3. Open "ReportBuilder_Textfields_without_Contentmarker.odb" from 
   Start Center file menu
4. In Database Pane click 'Tables'
   > In Tables Pane Table "Article" appears
5. Click "Article"
6. <Del>, conffirm deletion with <ok>
  Table deleted, "Article" disappears from Tables Pane
7. Click big "X" in top right window corner to close document and to close
   LibO , 
8. <Discard> to close document without saving
   LibO will be closed
9. Launch LibO, reopen document from 'Recent Documents'
10. In Database Pane click 'Tables'
   Expected: In Tables Pane Table "Article" appears
   Actual: No table. 

When you check latest access time for document in WIN file explorere you will see that that was few minutes ago, when you left LibO.

I also observed that problem for report in document.

This problem might be related to particular circumstances, today it's reproducible 100%, yesterday it was not reproducible at all.

Same with LibO 3.3.3 and AOOo 3.4. so seems inherited from OOo

I wonder whether this one is related to "Bug 53984 - Open existing Table or Report of particular document only possible after Registration of DB", where also strange file access might be involved.
Comment 1 Lionel Elie Mamane 2012-08-27 06:53:44 UTC
"Implicit" immediate save of data without an explicit separate save operation is the usual in database environment. If we would not save changes to data implicitly, then embedded databases would behave differently from external databases, leading to user confusion.

So, the current situation, in theory, is:

 1) Change to data itself => implicit save
 2) Change to query/report/form/... => explicit save

What I expect would be weird for users is that changes of category 2 actually need to be saved *twice*:

 1) Once in the form/report/... window, which saves them in the in-memory archive structure.
 2) Then go to the main database window, and click "save" there. This commits the in-memory archive structure to disk.

Also, I can easily imagine (not tested yet) that if one makes a change to a form, saves it *only* in the first sense above, and then a data change, then the whole archive structure is saved, including the form change. To me these semantics start to feel baroque. To say the least, this also leads to user confusion.

Just to be even more confused, changes to Basic code *used* to follow the "two-step save" semantics in older versions, but now saving from within the Basic code window *also* commits the odb to disk (it does a "save in the main window").

What I propose is to eliminate the second save everywhere: when one clicks on "save" in a report or form, also commit to disk. In this way, data follows its usual "implicit save" semantics *and* when the user saves something (in Basic / Form / Report / ... window), it is actually saved.
Comment 2 Alex Thurgood 2015-01-03 17:39:28 UTC Comment hidden (no-value)
Comment 3 QA Administrators 2016-01-17 20:04:48 UTC Comment hidden (obsolete)
Comment 4 QA Administrators 2017-03-06 14:31:18 UTC Comment hidden (obsolete)
Comment 5 QA Administrators 2019-12-03 14:05:51 UTC Comment hidden (obsolete)
Comment 6 QA Administrators 2021-12-03 04:26:56 UTC
Dear Rainer Bielefeld Retired,

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