Created attachment 91923 [details]
File for which data is getting repeated twice after RT
Steps to reproduce:
1. Open the attached file "resume.docx" in LibreOffice
2. Click File -> Save As (Microsoft Word 2007/2010 (.docx))
3. Open in MS Office 2010 and compare with original document
1. File should be identical.
1. The saved file has many more pages.
2. Table row data getting displayed twice.
Created attachment 91924 [details]
This is the saved file where data repeated can be seen
Created attachment 92025 [details]
Original file screenshot
Created attachment 92026 [details]
Round Triped file Screenshot
Also because of invalid section break introduction during export header & footer are also getting divided into sections (Header-Section1 Footer-Section1 & Header-Section2 Footer-Section2).
Refer: attached screenshot "Orig_file_header_footer.png" & "Roundtriped_file_header_footer.png".
Created attachment 92034 [details]
Orig file header footer screenshot
Created attachment 92035 [details]
RoundTrip file header footer screenshot
Pushed code changes for review
Tushar Bende committed a patch related to this issue.
It has been pushed to "master":
fdo#73534 : Table row data was getting displayed twice after RT
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:
Affected users are encouraged to test the fix and report feedback.
Verified on Build :libro-master~2014-01-24_00.29.32_LibreOfficeDev_188.8.131.52.alpha0_Win_x86.
Now table data is not getting display twice.Working fine.
Created attachment 163395 [details]
tdf73534_changePageStyleTable.odt: minimal test example that still applies
I was tempted to revert this patch, and doing that passes all unit tests. Even this minimal test looks fine as a .docx in LO, but it really messes up MS Word 2003 if a RES_PAGEDESC is written into the table (or whatever is happening without isCellOpen). So I'm adding this message and example file as an example of why the patch still needs to exist.