https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=126908
--- Comment #9 from orcmid <[email protected]> --- (In reply to Nicolay from comment #6) > My more information (single email): > Maybe the following will help you find a bug. > I fill column serial numbers 7133, 7134, 7135, 7136, 7137. > I select the filled cells and change their format to the format of the date > code DD.MM.YY. > I'm getting 11.07.19, 12.07.19, 13.07.19, 15.07.19, 16.07.19. > Note that July 14 is absent. When I do this exercise, I get 13.07.23 to 17.07.23, with no skips. That is with origin date 01/01/1904. With origin date 01/01/1900 I get 14.07.19 to 18.07.19. With origin date 12/30/1899 (in my UI), I get 12.07.19 to 16.07.19. So, I see no skips. I see another problem. The difference between dates with 12/31/1899 and 01/01/1900 should only be by 1 day later for 01/01/1900. The Help information does not account for this discrepancy. (The information about 01/01/1904 is also not helpful.) With origin date 01/01/1900 Excel 2016 reports that the .ods cannot be opened because it uses an unsupported date system. With origin date 12/31/1899 Excel 2016 (with default settings) shows the same results as Calc. Excel also agrees with Calc when I save the .ods from Calc with origin date 01/01/1904. Conclusions: 1. Calc does save date-origin information in the .ods, and Excel honors it when the 1899 and 1904 origin dates are used for converting serial day numbers to calendar dates. 2. The discrepancy with the 1900 origin is problematic but that setting should not be used any longer in any case. 3. It appears that the 1899 dates on Nicolay's system are too low sometimes and then there are jumps up to correct dates. 4. I added 0 and 1 to the list of test serial-day numbers. This was reported as 30.12.1899 on Calc, not 31.12.1899. Both are reported as 00.01.1900 by Excel 2016. (I believe that Excel does not allow 0 as a date, so it provided the earliest calendar date it does support.) Calc shows 30.12.1899 and 31.12.1899 for the two. 5. Note that with values 59-61, Excel shows calendar days 28.02.1900, 29.02.1900 (the famous 1900 leap-year bug that goes back at least to Lotus 1-2-3), and 01.03.1900. Calc shows 27.02.1900, 28.02.1900, and 01.03.1900. This is by design. The designers of the ODF format chose to insist that the leap-year discrepancy not be perpetuated. This means that Excel and Calc will disagree for dates earlier than 01.03.1900 and that is by design and why the 12/31/1899 origin adjustment is actually to 12/30/1899 to still interoperate with Excel from 1 March 1900 onward. QUESTION: Nicolay, do you see the same results for 0,1, and 59-61? UNRESOLVED: Why there are jumps with some implementations is still unresolved and we have not been able to reproduce it. If there are jumps up, there should be places where a jump "down" is accomplished by the same date twice in a row earlier. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the issue.
