LibreOffice has added a pair of options to the Sheet Protection dialog.
Allow all users of this sheet to: Select protected cells, Select unprotected cells
(XML : table:table-protection table:select-protected-cells=...)
AFAIK, there are no API methods for that.
It's a problem because many programs deal with (un)protection of sheets.
Not yet added for Version: 126.96.36.199
Please do not change the priority, this is in no way a major bug. It is an enhancement request
I thought it was only the opinion of each
(first connexion for me)
No worries - and apologies for the bluntness (I have to say similar things to lots of users, many of whom know the policy yet play with settings anyways). When we move to our own bug tracker we'll likely lock out those settings so that there is no confusion:)
That being said, for future references: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/images/c/c4/Unconfirmed_Bugs_Status_Flowchart_Version_0.1.pdf
That is the general guideline that many of us follow to ensure that we don't bias our own bugs and over prioritize :-D
Seems like a straightforward enhancement request.
Status -> NEW
Are there some developments? Or did I miss something?
It is annoying if you protect/unprotect a sheet via macro and lose the property Select-protected-cells=false
Kohei Yoshida, thanks to him, added 4 new options (see Bug 43535) that it would be nice to include in this problem if by chance a developer is looking into this issue.
I also ran into this today. I remember there was a ”bug” sometime ago, that if protected a sheet and didn't allow selecting protected cells, next time the document was opened that option was gone – it wasn't saved with the document. If that's still true, I can understand that adding this feature in the API is not very motivated. However, this is fixed since a while back. If I protect a sheet from selecting protected cells, then save, quit and reopen it, the feature is still there, preventing me from selecting protected cells, so it works perfectly.
With that background, introducing the feature in the API would feel like a natural step to me.