see meta bug 70798 for details
Winfried Donkers committed a patch related to this issue. It has been pushed to "master": http://cgit.freedesktop.org/libreoffice/core/commit/?id=5b1e440304c271e4286255c17a6fe475899bd94f fdo#72793 Add Excel 2010 functions The patch should be included in the daily builds available at http://dev-builds.libreoffice.org/daily/ in the next 24-48 hours. More information about daily builds can be found at: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Testing_Daily_Builds Affected users are encouraged to test the fix and report feedback.
Loading the functions-excel-2010.xlsx test case document and recalculating (Shift+Ctrl+F9) all formulas reveals that in row 66 the T.INV.2T() yields Err:502 (invalid arguments). That case is also still disabled in sc/qa/unit/subsequent_filters-test.cxx Isn't this fully implemented? Reopening this bug. Feel free to close and create a new one if deemed more appropriate.
(In reply to comment #2) > Loading the functions-excel-2010.xlsx test case document and recalculating > (Shift+Ctrl+F9) all formulas reveals that in row 66 the T.INV.2T() yields > Err:502 (invalid arguments). That case is also still disabled in > sc/qa/unit/subsequent_filters-test.cxx > > Isn't this fully implemented? > Reopening this bug. Feel free to close and create a new one if deemed more > appropriate. @Eike: Please see https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=70798#c19 and https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=70798#c20 IMO the formula in row 66 can't give a proper result with a probability of 1.3333 I had row 66 disabled on purpose because of this. It will need a test/proof with Excel because the Excel result was OK before (I guess, can;t check myself). Can you confirm my suspicion and if yes, can you push a revised xlsx document so that I can enable the test for row 66? If not, I'm at a loss ;-) I will keep the status if this bug reopened for the moment; we can close it as soon as the test is enabled (and OK).
(In reply to comment #3) > I will keep the status if this bug reopened for the moment; we can close it > as soon as the test is enabled (and OK). For if read of.
(In reply to comment #3) > IMO the formula in row 66 can't give a proper result with a probability of > 1.3333 According to MS (http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/help/t-inv-2t-function-HP010335700.aspx for Excel 2010, http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/excel-help/t-inv-2t-function-HA102753136.aspx for Excel 2013 and Excel Online), you are quite right: the function should give #NUM! error on probability > 1. But actually, both Excel 2013 and Excel Online give numeric result in row 66 of the abovementioned file (attachment 89635 [details]), and TRUE in D66. Funny :) Is it a bug, or a feature? %) By the way, maybe it could be useful for you to have a Live.com account to test stuff in Office Online?
(In reply to comment #3) > (In reply to comment #2) @Eike, I suddenly see that you wre not on the CC-list. Please see my comment #3 and comment #5.
Ah well, if it works according to their specification (or let's say description) don't bother with finding out what they do in cases they didn't specify. IMHO a probability >1 is meaningless anyway. IF someone came up with a proper use case for that unspecified behavior we could look at it again.