When one changes the displayed text of hyperlinks in the wysiwyg interface, writer creates new additional hyperlinks instead of fixing old ones. For example: 1. create an hyperlink on the word smart 2. add an s to smart → smarts in the editing window 3. look in the navigator: you now have a "smart" hyperlink and a "s" hyperlink with the same target Writer should extend the existing hyperlink instead of adding new ones Writer should automerge consecutive runs of text with the same hyperlink target in a single hyperlink
Me no repro. In step 2 I edit the link. Win 7 Pro 64-bit, Version: 5.1.3.2 (x64) Build ID: 644e4637d1d8544fd9f56425bd6cec110e49301b CPU Threads: 4; OS Version: Windows 6.1; UI Render: default; Locale: fi-FI (fi_FI) Version: 5.2.0.0.alpha1+ Build ID: f688acfdae00ebdd891737e533d54368810185e1 CPU Threads: 4; OS Version: Windows 6.1; UI Render: default; TinderBox: Win-x86@62-merge-TDF, Branch:MASTER, Time: 2016-05-18_00:11:31 Locale: fi-FI (fi_FI)
To be honest I don't really know what causes writer to cut links in small bits, but you have some example of the result in https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/attachment.cgi?id=125012 (look at the one-letter hyperlinks in the navigator, be aware writer takes a long time to open the file)
No repro on Linux either. Nicolas: so you reproduce this with a completely new document as well? Arch Linux 64-bit, KDE Plasma 5 Version: 5.2.0.0.alpha1+ Build ID: 6c785f65ea5cc961c0a079455973f3086731b2c9 CPU Threads: 8; OS Version: Linux 4.5; UI Render: default; Locale: fi-FI (fi_FI.UTF-8) Built on May 20th 2016
I am able to reproduce the fragmentation with the following steps: 1. Open a new text document. 2. Type the words "twenty-six dog and cat" into it. 3. Select the whole text and add a hyperlink to it (Insert - Hyperlink, e.g. "http://libreoffice.org"). 4. Save the document. 5. Change the text to "twenty-seven dogs and cats" - i.e. replace "ix" by "even", add "s" after "dog" and place cursor after "cat", type "ts" and remove "s". 6. Save and close the document. 7. Reopen the document -> the hyperlink is fragmented to "twenty-s", "even", " dogs ", " and ca" and "ts". Tested and observed in: 5.2 master (2016-05-19), 5.1.3, 5.0.5 (Ubuntu 15.10), 4.4.5, 4.2.6, 4.0.6, 3.6.5 (Windows 7). NOT observed in 3.5.4 (Windows 7) -> seems to be a regression between 3.5 and 3.6.
Nicolas: is comment 4 how you did it? I was doing the editing in the hyperlink editing dialog, not in the text itself. I can reproduce with steps in comment 4. Let's set to NEW, then. Arch Linux 64-bit, KDE Plasma 5 Version: 5.2.0.0.alpha1+ Build ID: 6c785f65ea5cc961c0a079455973f3086731b2c9 CPU Threads: 8; OS Version: Linux 4.5; UI Render: default; Locale: fi-FI (fi_FI.UTF-8) Built on May 20th 2016
Can't say if I did it exactly this way, but I do edit text including links in the main screen
** Please read this message in its entirety before responding ** To make sure we're focusing on the bugs that affect our users today, LibreOffice QA is asking bug reporters and confirmers to retest open, confirmed bugs which have not been touched for over a year. There have been thousands of bug fixes and commits since anyone checked on this bug report. During that time, it's possible that the bug has been fixed, or the details of the problem have changed. We'd really appreciate your help in getting confirmation that the bug is still present. If you have time, please do the following: Test to see if the bug is still present on a currently supported version of LibreOffice (5.2.7 or 5.3.3 https://www.libreoffice.org/download/ If the bug is present, please leave a comment that includes the version of LibreOffice and your operating system, and any changes you see in the bug behavior If the bug is NOT present, please set the bug's Status field to RESOLVED-WORKSFORME and leave a short comment that includes your version of LibreOffice and Operating System Please DO NOT Update the version field Reply via email (please reply directly on the bug tracker) Set the bug's Status field to RESOLVED - FIXED (this status has a particular meaning that is not appropriate in this case) If you want to do more to help you can test to see if your issue is a REGRESSION. To do so: 1. Download and install oldest version of LibreOffice (usually 3.3 unless your bug pertains to a feature added after 3.3) http://downloadarchive.documentfoundation.org/libreoffice/old/ 2. Test your bug 3. Leave a comment with your results. 4a. If the bug was present with 3.3 - set version to "inherited from OOo"; 4b. If the bug was not present in 3.3 - add "regression" to keyword Feel free to come ask questions or to say hello in our QA chat: http://webchat.freenode.net/?channels=libreoffice-qa Thank you for helping us make LibreOffice even better for everyone! Warm Regards, QA Team MassPing-UntouchedBug-20170522
Still reproducible in: Version: 6.0.0.0.alpha0+ Build ID: 141fe1c5e7fbf67a083b34e49e19b6ea78a0eb2b
Bibisecting on Linux with 43all I get this massive range, which is pretty useless (Feb 6 2012 to Dec 12 2011): https://cgit.freedesktop.org/libreoffice/core/log/?qt=range&q=ce97851773a06103504972eb2771eecd7dd81e36...43c7830b03d141ae11d8617c0fdabefa32dd243c&ofs=550 (In reply to Stanislav Horacek from comment #4) > 5. Change the text to "twenty-seven dogs and cats" - i.e. replace "ix" by > "even", add "s" after "dog" and place cursor after "cat", type "ts" and > remove "s". This should read: place cursor before the "t" in cat, type "ts" and remove the "t" from the end. Reminder for testers: check the links in Navigator
Dear Nicolas Mailhot, To make sure we're focusing on the bugs that affect our users today, LibreOffice QA is asking bug reporters and confirmers to retest open, confirmed bugs which have not been touched for over a year. There have been thousands of bug fixes and commits since anyone checked on this bug report. During that time, it's possible that the bug has been fixed, or the details of the problem have changed. We'd really appreciate your help in getting confirmation that the bug is still present. If you have time, please do the following: Test to see if the bug is still present with the latest version of LibreOffice from https://www.libreoffice.org/download/ If the bug is present, please leave a comment that includes the information from Help - About LibreOffice. If the bug is NOT present, please set the bug's Status field to RESOLVED-WORKSFORME and leave a comment that includes the information from Help - About LibreOffice. Please DO NOT Update the version field Reply via email (please reply directly on the bug tracker) Set the bug's Status field to RESOLVED - FIXED (this status has a particular meaning that is not appropriate in this case) If you want to do more to help you can test to see if your issue is a REGRESSION. To do so: 1. Download and install oldest version of LibreOffice (usually 3.3 unless your bug pertains to a feature added after 3.3) from http://downloadarchive.documentfoundation.org/libreoffice/old/ 2. Test your bug 3. Leave a comment with your results. 4a. If the bug was present with 3.3 - set version to 'inherited from OOo'; 4b. If the bug was not present in 3.3 - add 'regression' to keyword Feel free to come ask questions or to say hello in our QA chat: https://kiwiirc.com/nextclient/irc.freenode.net/#libreoffice-qa Thank you for helping us make LibreOffice even better for everyone! Warm Regards, QA Team MassPing-UntouchedBug
(In reply to Buovjaga from comment #9) > Bibisecting on Linux with 43all I get this massive range, which is pretty > useless (Feb 6 2012 to Dec 12 2011): Let's use keyword notBibisectable, then. Still occurs with 7.0.0.0.alpha0+ (aa191f35978ea48bbacc0e613ae8f0e6536ebcfc).
Dear Nicolas Mailhot, To make sure we're focusing on the bugs that affect our users today, LibreOffice QA is asking bug reporters and confirmers to retest open, confirmed bugs which have not been touched for over a year. There have been thousands of bug fixes and commits since anyone checked on this bug report. During that time, it's possible that the bug has been fixed, or the details of the problem have changed. We'd really appreciate your help in getting confirmation that the bug is still present. If you have time, please do the following: Test to see if the bug is still present with the latest version of LibreOffice from https://www.libreoffice.org/download/ If the bug is present, please leave a comment that includes the information from Help - About LibreOffice. If the bug is NOT present, please set the bug's Status field to RESOLVED-WORKSFORME and leave a comment that includes the information from Help - About LibreOffice. Please DO NOT Update the version field Reply via email (please reply directly on the bug tracker) Set the bug's Status field to RESOLVED - FIXED (this status has a particular meaning that is not appropriate in this case) If you want to do more to help you can test to see if your issue is a REGRESSION. To do so: 1. Download and install oldest version of LibreOffice (usually 3.3 unless your bug pertains to a feature added after 3.3) from https://downloadarchive.documentfoundation.org/libreoffice/old/ 2. Test your bug 3. Leave a comment with your results. 4a. If the bug was present with 3.3 - set version to 'inherited from OOo'; 4b. If the bug was not present in 3.3 - add 'regression' to keyword Feel free to come ask questions or to say hello in our QA chat: https://web.libera.chat/?settings=#libreoffice-qa Thank you for helping us make LibreOffice even better for everyone! Warm Regards, QA Team MassPing-UntouchedBug
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 148198 ***
Just wondering - shouldn't be new duplicates closed in favor of the older issues? For instance, here we have information about regression and "not bibisectable" which is missing in the new one.
(In reply to Stanislav Horacek from comment #14) > Just wondering - shouldn't be new duplicates closed in favor of the older > issues? Not always. > For instance, here we have information about regression and "not > bibisectable" which is missing in the new one. ... And in the other one there is > It was introduced in > https://git.libreoffice.org/core/+/062eaeffe7cb986255063bb9b0a5f3fb3fc8e34c > in 2011 (for version 3.6); then it was made optional in version 5.0 [1].
Also - this is not a regression, strictly speaking. In 3.6, a special character property was introduced (rsid) helping comparing document versions. But the real problem was already there long before, inherited from OOo, that any different character formatting of parts of a link splits the link. So the rsids applied now during edits behaves the same way as if you marked part of the link with italics (see another duplicate bug 149949). Or - say, if you add a new property like 3d character, and mark parts of links with that new property, it would split the link the same way, with the same "regression" logic.