Bug 93639 - Footer roman numerals not retained (converted to arabic numerals)
Summary: Footer roman numerals not retained (converted to arabic numerals)
Alias: None
Product: LibreOffice
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Writer (show other bugs)
(earliest affected)
Inherited From OOo
Hardware: All All
: low minor
Assignee: Not Assigned
Whiteboard: target:5.2.0
Keywords: filter:docx, preBibisect
: 97167 (view as bug list)
Depends on:
Blocks: DOCX-Limitations
  Show dependency treegraph
Reported: 2015-08-24 23:34 UTC by Matthew Holloway
Modified: 2016-12-09 10:45 UTC (History)
6 users (show)

See Also:
Crash report or crash signature:

Source document of footer roman numerals issue (283.33 KB, application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document)
2015-08-24 23:34 UTC, Matthew Holloway
msword rendering of document (89.94 KB, image/png)
2015-08-24 23:35 UTC, Matthew Holloway
Rendering in LibreOffice (36.22 KB, application/pdf)
2015-08-24 23:36 UTC, Matthew Holloway

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Matthew Holloway 2015-08-24 23:34:57 UTC
Created attachment 118142 [details]
Source document of footer roman numerals issue

In the attached document the footer page numbers are rendered in MSOffice as roman numerals (ie. `iv`), but in LibreOffice as arabic numerals (ie. `4`).
Comment 1 Matthew Holloway 2015-08-24 23:35:28 UTC
Created attachment 118143 [details]
msword rendering of document
Comment 2 Matthew Holloway 2015-08-24 23:36:11 UTC
Created attachment 118144 [details]
Rendering in LibreOffice
Comment 3 Joel Madero 2015-08-25 03:59:52 UTC
Wow ... on a role with these bug reports :)

Same story as previous ones - simple test document and testing older versions would be great. But here it goes:

Ubuntu 15.04 x64

Minor - unlike the other bugs this is not going to have a horrible lot of impact on professional quality work. Just the formatting of the numerals. Arguably major but I think in the grand scheme of these bug reports, this has a pretty low impact and is easily fixed;
Low - default

Note: If you can find this to be a regression we can bump it to medium.

needsDevEval: Potentially an easy fix so requesting developer input.
Comment 4 Marina Latini (SUSE) 2015-08-25 11:25:33 UTC
bug bisected but I can't find an unaffected version.

git bisect log
# bad: [2d379e53de53493b4a4ec81342416daa15d34b8d] source-hash-cb4e009c4539c535108021934e545194b35cad9d
# good: [65fd30f5cb4cdd37995a33420ed8273c0a29bf00] source-hash-d6cde02dbce8c28c6af836e2dc1120f8a6ef9932
git bisect start 'latest' 'oldest'
# bad: [b707aa5f76c7987ca68f44805903b76153cbd3e9] source-hash-b0da54bec69f4931af0adbc15d230d3f4eea7b08
git bisect bad b707aa5f76c7987ca68f44805903b76153cbd3e9
# bad: [56ece58206387e4eeb22ededff9c7a5b1bf699c3] source-hash-d50f02bec4a70bd26a518e4e76f4a876454ab937
git bisect bad 56ece58206387e4eeb22ededff9c7a5b1bf699c3
# bad: [012a0ee5a417076c44090b264f75bcc44c2f153c] source-hash-ce97851773a06103504972eb2771eecd7dd81e36
git bisect bad 012a0ee5a417076c44090b264f75bcc44c2f153c
# bad: [928b0f83297ef7d3343f62a08e8c61a2e5e89dd0] source-hash-6598e65cfcabd270199d09d11d9d93639bca620d
git bisect bad 928b0f83297ef7d3343f62a08e8c61a2e5e89dd0
# bad: [3745c13a463ed1fae01c836baba3eb43f4f2d6b9] source-hash-350e1e245643e107b6e46b2de3dc73906ab844a5
git bisect bad 3745c13a463ed1fae01c836baba3eb43f4f2d6b9
# bad: [c34563dd904a675f653216950c40be5068f01a7a] source-hash-a705aec5117fe9123236ebdeb0d6f271b83f8af4
git bisect bad c34563dd904a675f653216950c40be5068f01a7a
# bad: [3224f7b276eb703576667136d50164af3aa7a919] source-hash-2ba4caca79923ffe6db3a07a59ba84886b43f84a
git bisect bad 3224f7b276eb703576667136d50164af3aa7a919
# bad: [26fd8336b64e6b670293e15ea6c70271362e9202] source-hash-01f5362e7982cc1e5b8c9fa7216c892667971737
git bisect bad 26fd8336b64e6b670293e15ea6c70271362e9202
Comment 5 Marina Latini (SUSE) 2015-08-25 13:38:29 UTC
Bug does appear in oldest version of "bibisect-releases" (openoffice-3.3.0).

git log
commit 8e8988dc5e8570c931da35053245bd7da33349ea
Author: Matthew Francis <mjay.francis@gmail.com>
Date:   Tue Apr 14 22:35:02 2015 +0800


commit b608c8f8828dfb43a0dd22af7460c637a10dd0bd
Author: Matthew Francis <mjay.francis@gmail.com>
Date:   Tue Apr 14 22:34:53 2015 +0800

Comment 6 Robinson Tryon (qubit) 2015-12-14 06:02:31 UTC Comment hidden (obsolete)
Comment 7 raal 2016-01-17 16:42:51 UTC
*** Bug 97167 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 8 Björn Michaelsen 2016-08-24 22:00:31 UTC
Assuming bisected to imply bibisected, thus adding the latter. This is to make queries for "bibisected" not miss out bisected bugs.
Comment 9 Xisco Faulí 2016-09-14 14:59:54 UTC
Deleting 'bisected' and 'bibisected' from keywords as the problematic commits
hasn't been identified.
Adding 'regression' and 'preBibisect' keywords
Comment 10 Michael Stahl (allotropia) 2016-09-15 19:20:21 UTC
apparently not a regression, OOo 3.3 

appears to be fixed in 5.2.0, the ToC pages now have "iii" and "iv" numbering.