I'll attach a document with tables and lots of split/merged cells.
The layout in 5001 is seriously broken. Was OK in 4442.
Created attachment 116794 [details]
orininal .doc file
Created attachment 116795 [details]
PDF export from 5001
Created attachment 116796 [details]
PDF export from 4442
Created attachment 116798 [details]
Sort of similar .docx file
Interestingly enough, a sort of similar docx file does not have that problem
Working in the 50max bibisect repository, I see from `git bisect bad` ...
673958150b58137628749d1a63617bda60ada37b is the first bad commit
Author: Matthew Francis <email@example.com>
Date: Wed May 27 21:14:57 2015 +0800
Author: andreas_k <firstname.lastname@example.org>
AuthorDate: Tue Apr 7 01:16:16 2015 +0200
Commit: Yousuf Philips <email@example.com>
CommitDate: Tue Apr 7 21:33:13 2015 +0000
Breeze: update for index and changes
Tested-by: Jenkins <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Reviewed-by: Yousuf Philips <email@example.com>
:040000 040000 62f647b53323d009604c03e0c888cd79a1316628 31f75fb7f5bf64193400f2d0b151fa8b78d51a77 M opt
and from `git bisect log` ...
# bad: [dda106fd616b7c0b8dc2370f6f1184501b01a49e] source-hash-0db96caf0fcce09b87621c11b584a6d81cc7df86
# good: [5b9dd620df316345477f0b6e6c9ed8ada7b6c091] source-hash-2851ce5afd0f37764cbbc2c2a9a63c7adc844311
git bisect start 'latest' 'oldest'
# good: [0c30a2c797b249d0cd804cb71554946e2276b557] source-hash-45aaec8206182c16025cbcb20651ddbdf558b95d
git bisect good 0c30a2c797b249d0cd804cb71554946e2276b557
# bad: [2ce02b2ce56f12b9fcb9efbd380596975a3a5686] source-hash-17d714eef491bda2512ba8012e5b3067ca19a5be
git bisect bad 2ce02b2ce56f12b9fcb9efbd380596975a3a5686
# good: [e4deb8a42948865b7b23d447c1547033cb54535b] source-hash-ce46c98dbeb3364684843daa5b269c74fce2af64
git bisect good e4deb8a42948865b7b23d447c1547033cb54535b
# good: [30a39c6a9e3c59d493447b25aaeb1f70f194bbd7] source-hash-be44ec8c28ce2af9644fcc58317dc1c9b20e2a21
git bisect good 30a39c6a9e3c59d493447b25aaeb1f70f194bbd7
# good: [1a8cb86ddf494004e5f68b16c1a4e7535a97a880] source-hash-4d48b51ad4481a3e2ed8bc79728d1c845f58aed6
git bisect good 1a8cb86ddf494004e5f68b16c1a4e7535a97a880
# bad: [b4a31a3356155c60141cd57333f192072c4c642f] source-hash-8959ace44076273fc5398e8973005f5ba159b6c0
git bisect bad b4a31a3356155c60141cd57333f192072c4c642f
# good: [0f457f48a304371e75787c71783bd3ad14162c39] source-hash-75a3ade6f31c7a1b9b6e1d260eec7130845ed11f
git bisect good 0f457f48a304371e75787c71783bd3ad14162c39
# bad: [1fa27d3af43f793c8ab5717549fa206206f66839] source-hash-d82e94307f1e073a0ccddb506ba5fff3da042b42
git bisect bad 1fa27d3af43f793c8ab5717549fa206206f66839
# good: [3d6e692ed4f4e0f43ad1f7cf328d69b9748808f7] source-hash-ea0d69837a713893087f07a19c91e43fbfd8312e
git bisect good 3d6e692ed4f4e0f43ad1f7cf328d69b9748808f7
# bad: [303672a4bad2063ebe33532d416ffb073ba8343d] source-hash-216fdcbdb4c17f349ffd68abd1f372bea3287fad
git bisect bad 303672a4bad2063ebe33532d416ffb073ba8343d
# bad: [b1de98e971d9f33862f7947bc50b4d4822a7da90] source-hash-3a864cdb556a583ad4cec2bbeef9c7959d56dd91
git bisect bad b1de98e971d9f33862f7947bc50b4d4822a7da90
# bad: [faa593c2cce7a1b9dd9ede3d6149479ca7b89074] source-hash-c5bd865ac6e6d7fe1a26b2db3269d60c3c7b4ba4
git bisect bad faa593c2cce7a1b9dd9ede3d6149479ca7b89074
# bad: [673958150b58137628749d1a63617bda60ada37b] source-hash-123c7c1464d434db1070179aef2fa42aaeb41e41
git bisect bad 673958150b58137628749d1a63617bda60ada37b
# first bad commit: [673958150b58137628749d1a63617bda60ada37b] source-hash-123c7c1464d434db1070179aef2fa42aaeb41e41
Setting status NEW after search for duplicate reports.
I see the same problem on Windows Vista ...
Build ID: 89b5967658392d27fb3147e85abb2b5c1c34b101
TinderBox: Win-x86@39, Branch:master, Time: 2015-06-24_04:10:17
Locale: en-CA (en_CA)
thanks for confirming!
Reproducible with LibreOffice 5.0.1 from Debian.
I remove "bisected" keyword as it applies only when the exact commit is determined.
In that range this commit looks suspicious:
But that was fixed later by http://cgit.freedesktop.org/libreoffice/core/commit/?id=959ac511dbebeb3983da92052ced837b39b74ed9
The attached bugdoc looks good both in master and in libreoffice-5-0
(In reply to Andras Timar from comment #9)
> The attached bugdoc looks good both in master and in libreoffice-5-0
(I should find me some discipline and tracking system to do such checking myself..)
(Found an interesting pagination / rendering issue in the file from this issue. See bug 95582)
Created attachment 120270 [details]
compare MSO 2010 LO 51+ master 2015-11-03
MSO 3 pages, LO 503 3 pages, LO 51+ 4 pages.
Since the rendering is still not good, I suggest leave this bug open with what's left to fix. I compared page 2.
(In reply to Timur from comment #12)
> Created attachment 120270 [details]
> compare MSO 2010 LO 51+ master 2015-11-03
> MSO 3 pages, LO 503 3 pages, LO 51+ 4 pages.
> Since the rendering is still not good, I suggest leave this bug open with
> what's left to fix. I compared page 2.
That problem definitely is not the same as the issue reported and fixed for this issue. So refer to 95582 for the page rendering problem.
Ciao - Cor
(In reply to Cor Nouws from comment #13)
> That problem definitely is not the same as the issue reported and fixed for
> this issue. So refer to 95582 for the page rendering problem.
There was some confusion on my side. Sorry.
The issue in bug 95582 is not with attachment 116794 [details].
I now attached the correct file there.
The table rending problem from this issue is solved.
The problem reported by Timur in comment #12 is caused by rendering problems of the contents of the footer.
Will create a new issue for that.
Migrating Whiteboard tags to Keywords: (filter:doc, bibisected)