Bug 89133 - Formula: INDEX formula in array function missunderstoods text as 0
Summary: Formula: INDEX formula in array function missunderstoods text as 0
Status: RESOLVED DUPLICATE of bug 83461
Alias: None
Product: LibreOffice
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Calc (show other bugs)
Version:
(earliest affected)
4.4.0.3 release
Hardware: Other Windows (All)
: medium normal
Assignee: Not Assigned
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2015-02-05 08:58 UTC by Mikeyy - L10n HR
Modified: 2015-02-06 16:12 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

See Also:
Crash report or crash signature:


Attachments
Test document (9.88 KB, application/vnd.oasis.opendocument.spreadsheet)
2015-02-05 08:58 UTC, Mikeyy - L10n HR
Details

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Mikeyy - L10n HR 2015-02-05 08:58:15 UTC
Created attachment 113139 [details]
Test document

- Open test document
- delete range E3:J3 or replace text B* values with numerical values
- save document
- close LibreOffice
- open document again

Result: Array formula in AH3 / AH4 / AH6 shows ALL INDEX values. It understands text "-" value as 0 number, and shows all values.
Expected: Since there are no expected fileds found in those rows, IF in formula should default to FALSE and that's text "-". Text used in INDEX in place of integer should produce formula error of some kind, so formula result should be ERROR.


In short, text value placed in INDEX formula in place of row/column number is understood by formula as 0. I'm not really sure that's intended behaviour since it's integer field.

Windows 8.1
LibreOffice 4.4.0.3
Comment 1 GerardF 2015-02-05 10:27:36 UTC
MAX() with 0 numeric argument returns 0, so INDEX returns complete range.

But as the formula is originally entered in one cell, she should not returns an array.
It is the same problem as this bug report for FREQUENCY function here:
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=83461
Comment 2 Mikeyy - L10n HR 2015-02-05 11:53:37 UTC
I understand. Can we then mark this as duplicate of bug 83461?
Comment 3 GerardF 2015-02-06 16:12:21 UTC
(In reply to Mikeyy - L10n HR from comment #2)
> I understand. Can we then mark this as duplicate of bug 83461?

As per comment 10 in bug 83461, yes.

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 83461 ***