[www-issues] [Issue 92602] wiki and user.services.ope noffice.org offline
To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue: http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=92602 User terrye changed the following: What|Old value |New value CC|''|'atjensen,khirano' IssuesThisDependsOn| |92601 Status|RESOLVED |UNCONFIRMED Resolution|FIXED | This issue depends on issue 92601, which changed state: What|Old value |New value Status|RESOLVED |REOPENED Resolution|FIXED | --- Additional comments from [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sat Aug 9 10:32:53 + 2008 --- I did ssh onto the usOOo zone and checked the services at 19:11 CET. Everything was up and the root FS was only 22% utilised. The apache services and forum was also up. It is all down again including ping and ssh. From ribibue's comments this occurred between 19:11 and 03:43 the following day. Since the wiki crashes at the same time, I assume that this is a sister zone on the same box. Anyway, I couldn't see anything untoward with usOOo so either something in the wiki zone or H/W probs are the probable reason for the box crashing. This issue is also a duplicate of #92601 - Please do not reply to this automatically generated notification from Issue Tracker. Please log onto the website and enter your comments. http://qa.openoffice.org/issue_handling/project_issues.html#notification - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[www-issues] [Issue 92601] services.openoffice.org no t reachable
To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue: http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=92601 User terrye changed the following: What|Old value |New value OtherIssuesDependingOnTh| |92602 is| | - Please do not reply to this automatically generated notification from Issue Tracker. Please log onto the website and enter your comments. http://qa.openoffice.org/issue_handling/project_issues.html#notification - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[www-issues] [Issue 92602] wiki and user.services.ope noffice.org offline
To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue: http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=92602 Issue #|92602 Summary|wiki and user.services.openoffice.org offline Component|www Version|current Platform|Unknown URL| OS/Version|All Status|UNCONFIRMED Status whiteboard| Keywords| Resolution| Issue type|DEFECT Priority|P1 Subcomponent|openoffice.org website general issues Assigned to|[EMAIL PROTECTED] Reported by|terrye --- Additional comments from [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Aug 8 15:49:22 + 2008 --- The wiki and user forum servers are both down (192.18.196.109 and 192.18.196.107) nodes are both offline. Our named contacts Clayton Myers and Gerd Weiss are both on Vacation. Could on of your sysadmins have a look at these boxes (or box because they might be zones on the same box) and bring them back on-line ASAC. I have root access to user.services.Openoffice.org, but SSL and ping are dead. I don't have access to the Wiki so someone else will have to health check that. This is the public face of OOo and its offline. - Please do not reply to this automatically generated notification from Issue Tracker. Please log onto the website and enter your comments. http://qa.openoffice.org/issue_handling/project_issues.html#notification - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[sc-issues] [Issue 84979] Logic flaw in Create Names range checking
To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue: http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=84979 --- Additional comments from [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed Jan 16 17:46:53 + 2008 --- I'm not convinced of using the regex engine though (besides that I wouldn't call it perfectly good, which for sure it isn't). After I did this post, I had a look at this implementation. In its current version is not usable. that would add performance penalty impacting at least the current Excel import. Actually minuscule since this would only be invoked once per defined name. - Please do not reply to this automatically generated notification from Issue Tracker. Please log onto the website and enter your comments. http://qa.openoffice.org/issue_handling/project_issues.html#notification - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[sc-issues] [Issue 84979] Logic flaw in Create Names range checking
To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue: http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=84979 --- Additional comments from [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sun Jan 13 01:17:01 + 2008 --- Eike, If you want me to document this properly or suggest a patch then let me know, but until then this one is with you. TerryE - Please do not reply to this automatically generated notification from Issue Tracker. Please log onto the website and enter your comments. http://qa.openoffice.org/issue_handling/project_issues.html#notification - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[sw-issues] [Issue 76465] RTF to ODT, then cannot op en ODT
To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue: http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=76465 --- Additional comments from [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Jan 11 03:00:52 + 2008 --- Created an attachment (id=50796) More Specific Test Case - Please do not reply to this automatically generated notification from Issue Tracker. Please log onto the website and enter your comments. http://qa.openoffice.org/issue_handling/project_issues.html#notification - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[sw-issues] [Issue 76465] RTF to ODT, then cannot op en ODT
To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue: http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=76465 --- Additional comments from [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Jan 11 03:02:10 + 2008 --- Created an attachment (id=50797) Odt version of second test case - Please do not reply to this automatically generated notification from Issue Tracker. Please log onto the website and enter your comments. http://qa.openoffice.org/issue_handling/project_issues.html#notification - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[sw-issues] [Issue 76465] RTF to ODT, then cannot op en ODT
To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue: http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=76465 --- Additional comments from [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Jan 11 03:56:59 + 2008 --- See http://user.services.openoffice.org/en/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5t=1532 for background This is the same issue but the title is actually wrong: this is a symptom rather than the underlying bug discussed below. One of the most common Denial of Service issues that we see on both the user.services and OooForums is that our users post “I suddenly can't read my (usually ODT) file and I have now lost all my work. What do I do to get it back.” However without hard test cases it hasn't be realistic to raise this as a hard issue. However, this time I took the effort to do a binary chop on the content.xml to isolate the troublesome tags. In all three cases, the problem was caused by style:text-position attribute within a style:text-properties tag to place the text on the line. These all conformed to the ODF spec. The issue was that whilst MS Word allows vertical offsets 1 line, in Writer these are limited in the GIU to a maximum of +/- 100%. I've had a look at the code for the XML exporter and importer. It seems to be using a standard framework which is generated from the XML DTD with a whole load of stub to do the filling in so that the internal structures can be mapped to XML and visa-versa. The issue is that the outbound validation is a lot less lax than the inbound (After all, why bother validating the outbound — its valid already, isn't it?). Well this actually break a pretty design principle for such converters because if there is any logic path which results in the internal state being inconsistent with the input validation parameters, you can still successfully save your document, thereby overwriting a valid document with an unloadable one. This is at *least* a P2 error. I've created a minimal RTF which replicates the Topic 1532 case. Here the problem style is T2. The equivalent tags in Attachment 2 ODT are P262 an T5. Set all 3 to “-100% 100% and the docs will load. This is not an RTF error. RTF is purely the access path to load the Rich Text bypassing XML input validation. There are others: open Attachment 3 RTF and do a select all and copy. Now open any large OTD and paste the clipboard. Save. Close and try the reopen: bang you have now lost your precious document, The poster on topic 1532 mention that the user was pasting content from PPTs (opened in Calc) to create this failure. In general the whole concept of aborting file loads because a parameter is out of bounds is flawed. At a minimum there should be a load option to enable demotion of such errors to a warning or a dialogue to the effect that “This document contains formatting that may be lost in OpenOffice, Click Yes to continue loading”. That way at least the user might have the odd height position clipped rather than loosing access to the whole document. - Please do not reply to this automatically generated notification from Issue Tracker. Please log onto the website and enter your comments. http://qa.openoffice.org/issue_handling/project_issues.html#notification - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[sw-issues] [Issue 76465] RTF to ODT, then cannot op en ODT
To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue: http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=76465 User terrye changed the following: What|Old value |New value CC|''|'terrye' - Please do not reply to this automatically generated notification from Issue Tracker. Please log onto the website and enter your comments. http://qa.openoffice.org/issue_handling/project_issues.html#notification - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[sc-issues] [Issue 84934] ODFF: DAYS360 compliance
To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue: http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=84934 --- Additional comments from [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed Jan 9 15:40:22 + 2008 --- Eike, I could give you a diff file for this, but I don't have a CVS acct to give you a cvs diff, so why don't just leave this to you. It's interpr2.cxx:336, change as above. - Please do not reply to this automatically generated notification from Issue Tracker. Please log onto the website and enter your comments. http://qa.openoffice.org/issue_handling/project_issues.html#notification - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[sc-issues] [Issue 84934] ODFF: DAYS360 compliance
To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue: http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=84934 --- Additional comments from [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed Jan 9 22:22:31 + 2008 --- Created an attachment (id=50766) Ditto + 3 extra sheets givien 30E/360 test vectors + validation delta - Please do not reply to this automatically generated notification from Issue Tracker. Please log onto the website and enter your comments. http://qa.openoffice.org/issue_handling/project_issues.html#notification - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[sc-issues] [Issue 84934] ODFF: DAYS360 compliance
To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue: http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=84934 --- Additional comments from [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed Jan 9 22:39:59 + 2008 --- However, to produce a cvs diff -pu you don't need a CVS account, anoncvs does as well, check out sources using cvs -d :pserver:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/cvs ... Thanks, I should have thought about anoncvs. This gives enough to google up some references. Are you sure that change doesn't break the other !bFlag case? I didn't check yet. No this guard condition is to do the flip *ONLY* if true. It therefore leaves the true case unchanged. Trust but verify I've added the extra 30E/360 check in the test spreadsheet to cover this one explicitly. The TRUE option used to and still works. ... parameter 3. ... That wouldn't do. While zero is interpreted as False, any other value than zero is interpreted as True. Fine, your the chief engineer for this module. ANother thing: there once was a reference document SMD_Fields_030802.pdf publicly available at some financial services provider or so that claimed the Excel method was called PSA 30 or NASD 30, and Excel was the only application implementing that. Unfortunately the document isn't available anymore. Do you happen to know if that is some official name, or whether there are public references one could point to? No primary references. These still seem to be in paper form only. Google wiki 360 day calendar. I updated the Wikipedia article, and in researching ths came across two good secondary refs: http://www.financialcad.com/support/developerfunc/mathref/Daycount.htm http://www.sifma.org/services/publications/calculations-method-volume2.shtml - Please do not reply to this automatically generated notification from Issue Tracker. Please log onto the website and enter your comments. http://qa.openoffice.org/issue_handling/project_issues.html#notification - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[www-issues] [Issue 85096] SSH2 key for Terry Ellison
To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue: http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=85096 Issue #|85096 Summary|SSH2 key for Terry Ellison Component|www Version|current Platform|All URL| OS/Version|Windows XP Status|UNCONFIRMED Status whiteboard| Keywords| Resolution| Issue type|TASK Priority|P3 Subcomponent|openoffice.org CVS Assigned to|[EMAIL PROTECTED] Reported by|terrye --- Additional comments from [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed Jan 9 05:43:06 + 2008 --- Could I please have CVS access for me with the attached key. I have signed the JCA. I only need read access to the repository at this stage. kpalagin's suggestion on Issue #84934 refers. Regards Terry Ellison. ssh-rsa B3NzaC1yc2EBJQAAAIEAhnQu/IycuY8IXUVDLdUrLKE/S/2OcEW1fBoVEsEO87IxzVL59ecFKzzYg8c5IupheyEUzfXPMcsdNa7y5XaK4P63Wkqx+ZNV+Oi4i2uWf4DQU/aGYGwLtMKrQMurOLNURswiHEuYHV3ysxQ9nqAsnn5cA9EyKCQ7C1U5rvgRyrE= rsa-key-TerryE - Please do not reply to this automatically generated notification from Issue Tracker. Please log onto the website and enter your comments. http://qa.openoffice.org/issue_handling/project_issues.html#notification - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[sc-issues] [Issue 84979] Logic flaw in Create Names range checking
To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue:
http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=84979
--- Additional comments from [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Jan 8 02:36:55 +
2008 ---
Having spent 30 mins running through various test cases the Excel validation
business rule is:
(1) replace all non alphanumeric (+list of special chars) with _
(2) append _ to any names which would otherwise be valid sheet references.
Note that since (1) removes ! and : we only need to test a limit number of cases
in (2):
The validation process is therefore as follows:
1) Scan the name replacing any character other than as follows with “_”
Any Alphabetic Character (regardless of language)
Any Numeric Character
The Special Characters: . (46), ? (63), \ (92), ˆ (95),
_ (128), ¨ (136), ¯ (152), ´ (153), ¸ (168),
˜ (175), • (180), € (183), ™ (184)
2) If any substitutions have occurred then trim any leading or trailing “_”
3) If the string matches /^([a-zA-Z]{1,2})(\d+)$/ and
uppercase($1) ”IV” and $2 65537
Then append “_” to the name
3) If the string matches /^([Rr](\d*)$/ and $1 65537 or
/^([Cr](\d*)$/ and $1 257 or
/^([Rr](\d*) ([Cr](\d*)$/ and $1 65537 $2 257
Then append “_” to the name and flag an error on this name.
Don't ask my why that list of special chars, but that's what it is. Likewise
why it objects to RC1_ and not A1_ etc..
Given that the only change here is that Calc uses the . separator then then the
only change that you would need to do to drop . from the special character
list.
Given that OOo already contains a perfectly good Regexp engine we could code
this up is about 30 lines of code rather than the current 1,000 or so, and even
put in a few comments to say what we are doing and why.
-
Please do not reply to this automatically generated notification from
Issue Tracker. Please log onto the website and enter your comments.
http://qa.openoffice.org/issue_handling/project_issues.html#notification
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[sc-issues] [Issue 84979] Logic flaw in Create Names range checking
To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue: http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=84979 --- Additional comments from [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Jan 8 02:54:54 + 2008 --- Sorry there is an extraneous space in the last regexp above -- a typo. Also I would use the same validation algorithm for Define Names. At them moment this only validates against A1 format names so RC1 is a perfectly valid name, which will then become inaccessible if saved as XLS and opened in Excel. - Please do not reply to this automatically generated notification from Issue Tracker. Please log onto the website and enter your comments. http://qa.openoffice.org/issue_handling/project_issues.html#notification - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[sc-issues] [Issue 84979] Logic flaw in Create Names range checking
To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue: http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=84979 --- Additional comments from [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sun Jan 6 16:08:45 + 2008 --- The enum convention (address.hxx:255) defines 5 types (CONV_OOO, CONV_XL_A1, CONV_XL_R1C1, CONV_XL_OOX, CONV_LOTUS_A1). ScRangeData::MakeValidName enumerates over these calling ScAddress::Parse and ScRange::Parse as object methods with two acquisition objects: aName and aRange. The main logic flaw is that these Parse functions process the range name left-to-right returning a USHORT containing SCA_FLAGS (see address.hxx:201 et seq) which indicate which component parts of a range have been decoded. There is no flag to indicate that garbage is found after the range reference. However, ScRangeData::MakeValidName treats them as a simple boolean. Hence if any of the parse methods see a fragment reference then this is treated as a match and the _ prefix is applied. Incidentally these parse methods only decode for CONV_OOO (the default), CONV_XL_A1 and CONV_XL_R1C1 so CONV_OOO is called 3 times, and as the match routine does not quit on first match, multiple transformations can occur. For example, in the case of A123:B124 aRange.Parse(,,CONV_OOO) returns 0xF700 resulting in A123_B124 aRange.Parse(,,CONV_XLA1) returns 0xC700 resulting in _A123_B124 Because this is processing 10 parse routines which could (partial) match under various conditions we get the bizarre variants described in the original post. What is very cleat ro me is that whoever coded this up did not start by getting a stable logical functional specification, physicalising it and the refactoring it before moving onto design and implementation. This whole area of functionality it a mess. You are not going to sort it out as a 3.x release. You need a consistent detailed specification before you can sort this out so I think that this is a 4.0 issue. What you could do in 3.x is a minimum change to disable some of more bizarre aspects. I will make some note on what I regard as a sensible FS. I wouldn't attempt to try to fix this tangled code bottom up. One options might be to disable all bar OOO parsing for 3.1. Thoughts? - Please do not reply to this automatically generated notification from Issue Tracker. Please log onto the website and enter your comments. http://qa.openoffice.org/issue_handling/project_issues.html#notification - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[sc-issues] [Issue 84934] ODFF: DAYS360 compliance
To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue: http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=84934 --- Additional comments from [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sun Jan 6 18:51:26 + 2008 --- Here's the patch which makes Calc 100% compatible with Excel on this one: sc/source/core/tool/interpr2.cxx line 335 if (nDate2 nDate1) if (bFlag (nDate2 nDate1)) Tested on my OOo 2.2.1 sandpit, but I don't think module this was changed in 2.3 or 2.3.1 so this same patch should apply. - Please do not reply to this automatically generated notification from Issue Tracker. Please log onto the website and enter your comments. http://qa.openoffice.org/issue_handling/project_issues.html#notification - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[sc-issues] [Issue 84934] ODFF: DAYS360 compliance
To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue: http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=84934 --- Additional comments from [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Jan 7 00:09:52 + 2008 --- Already signed the JPA, as this isn't my first fix. I'll submit the patch. One for er to ponder, one way of retaining Excel compatability for this function, plus allowing a 30/360 SIA compliant option would be to over load parameter 3. At the moment it is a boolean. Why not allow an integer argment also. Hence False = 0 = 30/360 Excel True = -1,1 = 30E/360 2= 30/360 SIA compliant. Clearly export to XLS should map arg 3 back to T/F so you lose compliance. - Please do not reply to this automatically generated notification from Issue Tracker. Please log onto the website and enter your comments. http://qa.openoffice.org/issue_handling/project_issues.html#notification - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[sc-issues] [Issue 84934] ODFF: DAYS360 compliance
To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue: http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=84934 --- Additional comments from [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Jan 3 14:04:23 + 2008 --- Created an attachment (id=50643) Version 2 of test cases - Please do not reply to this automatically generated notification from Issue Tracker. Please log onto the website and enter your comments. http://qa.openoffice.org/issue_handling/project_issues.html#notification - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[sc-issues] [Issue 84934] ODFF: DAYS360 compliance
To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue: http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=84934 User terrye changed the following: What|Old value |New value Assigned to|er|spreadsheet --- Additional comments from [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Jan 3 13:59:37 + 2008 --- kpalagin, I have updated the ODS to V2 to do the extra comparison, This includes the following sheets which evaluate this function for a 36x36 test vector: ExcelEvaluated on Excel 2003 Calc Evaluated on Calc 2.3.1 USDays360Basic implementation of 30/360 (SIA) algo ExDays360Basic implementation of the Excel algo CalcAlgo360 Basic implementation of the Calc algo DiffExcelCalcExcel-Calc Delta DiffExcelUSDays360 Excel-30/360 Delta DiffCalcUSDays360Calc-30/360 Delta DiffExcelExDays360 Excel-Its Basic Implementation Delta(==0) DiffCalcCalcAlgo360 Calc-Its Basic Implementation Delta(==0) Ignore my last post of Wed Jan 2 15:27:10. I had a mind fart. The algorithm is for two dates A,B where AB. Excel gets dates wrong when comparing last days of leap-years. In the defined range Calc and Excel agree, so calc also gets it wrong. Also Microsoft has preserve this same bug since Excel 97 to ensure calculation compatibility. Where they DO differ is in the case where AB, in that neither error but instead adopt different conventions: Calc flips the algo about the origin so DAYS360(A,B)=-DAYS360(B,A) and Excel just extrapolates (meaninglessly) backwards so that the two randomly differ by up to 2 days. The point is that users may use DAYS360 outside of its strict use in actuarial calcs and win such cases we might get AB. In such cases loading a working (that is doing what the user thinks is OK) spreadsheet into Calc will give different results. - Please do not reply to this automatically generated notification from Issue Tracker. Please log onto the website and enter your comments. http://qa.openoffice.org/issue_handling/project_issues.html#notification - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[sc-issues] [Issue 84979] Logic flaw in Create Names range checking
To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue: http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=84979 Issue #|84979 Summary|Logic flaw in Create Names range checking Component|Spreadsheet Version|OOo 2.3.1 Platform|All URL| OS/Version|Windows XP Status|UNCONFIRMED Status whiteboard| Keywords| Resolution| Issue type|DEFECT Priority|P3 Subcomponent|code Assigned to|spreadsheet Reported by|terrye --- Additional comments from [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Jan 4 04:41:03 + 2008 --- http://user.services.openoffice.org/en/forum/viewtopic.php?f=33t=1343 refers Insert-Names-Create calls ScAddress::Parse in sc/source/core/tool/address.cxx to parse and validate the range address against for three variants CONV_OOO, CONV_XL_A1, CONV_XL_R1C1. The intent here is to capture any range names which have a valid A1 or RC notation syntax and prefix such with an underscore to prevent a possible conflict of the form: Named range IF99 refers to D23. If cell A1 contains the formula =IF99 does this equal cell IF99 or cell D23? However the implementation is not based on matching the entire string but on certain valid prefix strings. Hence underscore prefix occurs if the name matches: ^(\a+)(\d+).* and $1 = IV0 $2 = 63356 ^[RrCc] ^[RrCc][^0-9].* ^[RrCc]([0-9].*) and 0 $1 = 63556 Hence Cot, Row, If1stop, In9vxx, R65536xx, R6553x7zz generate _ prefixes. Boat, Saw, IX2, A0, In9xx, R65537zz do not. OK including RC notation is sensible future proofing but * There is nothing to be gained by enabling prefix matching. The rule should be at the prefix only occurs if the name in its *entirety* would also be a valid cell reference in A1 or RC notation. * You need to decide a policy on maximum bounds. This should either be the current worksheet dimensions (256x65536) for *both* A1 and RC notation or we adopt a clearly defined growth factor (e.g. 2Gb x 2Gb). * Help should clearly state the rules for prefixing Incidentally Excel postfixes *only* if the entire reference would generate an address conflict (excepting patterns of the form R99C999 which it rejects). Again this one should be easy to fix IF we do an entire match and use current bounds. Let me know if you want me to propose a patch. - Please do not reply to this automatically generated notification from Issue Tracker. Please log onto the website and enter your comments. http://qa.openoffice.org/issue_handling/project_issues.html#notification - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[sc-issues] [Issue 84934] Bug in DAYS360 Algo
To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue: http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=84934 --- Additional comments from [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed Jan 2 15:27:10 + 2008 --- Having read the documentation and looked at the test data again, I feel that Calc does provide a sensible implementation of the 30US/360 aka SIA variant algorithm. It's only Excel that is wrong. If we are intending to maintain correctness and therefore Excel incompatibility, then this should at least be reflected in the online help and documented under MSOffice-Excel incompatibilities. - Please do not reply to this automatically generated notification from Issue Tracker. Please log onto the website and enter your comments. http://qa.openoffice.org/issue_handling/project_issues.html#notification - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[sc-issues] [Issue 84934] Bug in DAYS360 Algo
To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue: http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=84934 Issue #|84934 Summary|Bug in DAYS360 Algo Component|Spreadsheet Version|OOo 2.3.1 Platform|All URL| OS/Version|Windows XP Status|UNCONFIRMED Status whiteboard| Keywords| Resolution| Issue type|DEFECT Priority|P3 Subcomponent|code Assigned to|spreadsheet Reported by|terrye --- Additional comments from [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed Jan 2 01:17:00 + 2008 --- Mail Reader Message Refers: http://www.openoffice.org/servlets/ReadMsg?list=devmsgNo=21247 User Forum Message Refers: http://user.services.openoffice.org/en/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5t=1289 In your dialogue you mentions that Excel has a bug in its implementation of 30U/360, and states that Calc MUST be compatible with Excel. Yes Excel has a bug, and NO CALC is NOT compatible with Excel. I have attached a spreadsheet * which compares Excel and Calc against 3OU/360 against a reasonable test cover showing how Excel deviates from 3OU/360 and Calc from Excel * Provides Basic functions which implements * The 3OU/360 Algo * The Excel Algo showing the bug and why it gets the wrong answer * The Calc Algo showing its bug and why it disagrees with Excel. The code in sc/source/core/tool/interpr2.cxx would be trivial to make compatible with Excel, so it seems a shame for this incompatibility to remain. Do you want me to propose a patch? - Please do not reply to this automatically generated notification from Issue Tracker. Please log onto the website and enter your comments. http://qa.openoffice.org/issue_handling/project_issues.html#notification - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[sc-issues] [Issue 84934] Bug in DAYS360 Algo
To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue: http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=84934 --- Additional comments from [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed Jan 2 01:18:19 + 2008 --- Created an attachment (id=50619) Spreadsheet showing bug and Basic for correct Algo - Please do not reply to this automatically generated notification from Issue Tracker. Please log onto the website and enter your comments. http://qa.openoffice.org/issue_handling/project_issues.html#notification - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[graphics-issues] [Issue 84927] Impress Animation time out
To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue: http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=84927 Issue #|84927 Summary|Impress Animation time out Component|Presentation Version|OOo 2.3.1 Platform|All URL| OS/Version|Windows XP Status|UNCONFIRMED Status whiteboard| Keywords| Resolution| Issue type|DEFECT Priority|P3 Subcomponent|viewing Assigned to|cgu Reported by|terrye --- Additional comments from [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Jan 1 02:20:15 + 2008 --- Reported by usOOo user PSpeak. See http://user.services.openoffice.org/en/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10t=1065 Verified by TerryE. See Attached ODP for test case. According to the documentation when an effect is until next click it is supposed to do exactly that. The content.xml reflects this, yet the Slide show stops the effect after two cycles (~2 secs). anim:par smil:begin=0s smil:end=next smil:fill=hold smil:repeatCount=indefinite ... If you save this test case as a PPT, the Powerpoint shows the show and animations correctly so this is a show bug. - Please do not reply to this automatically generated notification from Issue Tracker. Please log onto the website and enter your comments. http://qa.openoffice.org/issue_handling/project_issues.html#notification - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[graphics-issues] [Issue 84927] Impress Animation time out
To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue: http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=84927 --- Additional comments from [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Jan 1 02:21:12 + 2008 --- Created an attachment (id=50612) Test Case to show bug - Please do not reply to this automatically generated notification from Issue Tracker. Please log onto the website and enter your comments. http://qa.openoffice.org/issue_handling/project_issues.html#notification - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[graphics-issues] [Issue 84927] Impress Animation time out
To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue: http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=84927 --- Additional comments from [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Jan 1 02:46:51 + 2008 --- Sorry on further checking, I suspect that this is a duplicate of Issue 54019 -- not so much the terminating click being recognised but any repeats 1 not being processed. So this is at least a 28 month old bug. - Please do not reply to this automatically generated notification from Issue Tracker. Please log onto the website and enter your comments. http://qa.openoffice.org/issue_handling/project_issues.html#notification - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[api-issues] [Issue 62081] Userdefined function doesn 't work anymore after it appears as pure text in the spreadsheet
To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue: http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=62081 --- Additional comments from [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sun Dec 23 01:41:25 + 2007 --- By the way, this is particularly a pitfall because (unlike Excel) this automagic range detection is enabled by default. It is a bizarre feature that should only be activated if the user requests it. - Please do not reply to this automatically generated notification from Issue Tracker. Please log onto the website and enter your comments. http://qa.openoffice.org/issue_handling/project_issues.html#notification - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[sc-issues] [Issue 76137] cannot access two dimensio nnal array
To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue: http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=76137 --- Additional comments from [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Dec 17 19:43:21 + 2007 --- This isn't a bug. It's a feature by design. The getDataArray method returns a Sequence of Sequence which the Basic RTL maps onto a VariantArray, where each element is itself a Variant Array. This is *NOT* a 2-D array. Whilst this may seem counter intuitive, this is the current design, and not a bug. I know that Noel Power was looking to support the VBA syntax for such constructs: print v(r_idx)(c_idx) The workaround specified isn't a workaround. It's the documented (and somewhat crappy) metho of accessing such contructs. Note that since Variant Arrays are passed by reference and not value the assignment tmp = temp(c_idx) is infact a reference and so temp(c_idx) = 999 in fact updates v(r_idx)(c_idx) So this is not a defect. Sorry - Please do not reply to this automatically generated notification from Issue Tracker. Please log onto the website and enter your comments. http://qa.openoffice.org/issue_handling/project_issues.html#notification - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[sc-issues] [Issue 76137] cannot access two dimensio nnal array
To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue: http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=76137 --- Additional comments from [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Dec 17 19:44:16 + 2007 --- This isn't a bug. It's a feature by design. The getDataArray method returns a Sequence of Sequence which the Basic RTL maps onto a VariantArray, where each element is itself a Variant Array. This is *NOT* a 2-D array. Whilst this may seem counter intuitive, this is the current design, and not a bug. I know that Noel Power was looking to support the VBA syntax for such constructs: print v(r_idx)(c_idx) The workaround specified isn't a workaround. It's the documented (and somewhat crappy) metho of accessing such contructs. Note that since Variant Arrays are passed by reference and not value the assignment tmp = temp(c_idx) is infact a reference and so temp(c_idx) = 999 in fact updates v(r_idx)(c_idx) So this is not a defect. Sorry - Please do not reply to this automatically generated notification from Issue Tracker. Please log onto the website and enter your comments. http://qa.openoffice.org/issue_handling/project_issues.html#notification - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[sc-issues] [Issue 82501] Cell Names Lost When Copyi ng Work Sheets
To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue: http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=82501 --- Additional comments from [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Dec 17 20:01:08 + 2007 --- I was just scanning the lists and came acoss this one. Isn't this just how Calc works by design? Excel supports Names as collection associated with a Sheet. Calc does not (at the moment) and all names are global. Names are *NOT* moved or copied when you copy a sheet. Clearly if you move a sheet inside a workbook then the name is still valid. If you move a sheet to another workbook, then in the source workbook these references become undefined. This isn't a bug, it's really linked to 60108 - Please do not reply to this automatically generated notification from Issue Tracker. Please log onto the website and enter your comments. http://qa.openoffice.org/issue_handling/project_issues.html#notification - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[www-issues] [Issue 81568] access to user.services.op enoffice.org
To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue: http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=81568 --- Additional comments from [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed Sep 26 19:31:03 + 2007 --- No I am in on my user account. I had to unlock it. Wonders of Solaris. Gerd, you can close this item. Thanks. Terry - Please do not reply to this automatically generated notification from Issue Tracker. Please log onto the website and enter your comments. http://qa.openoffice.org/issue_handling/project_issues.html#notification - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[www-issues] [Issue 81568] access to user.services.op enoffice.org
To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue: http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=81568 --- Additional comments from [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Sep 18 12:55:26 + 2007 --- In on root. Bounced on terrye. Will work out why after OOoCon. Thks. Terry. - Please do not reply to this automatically generated notification from Issue Tracker. Please log onto the website and enter your comments. http://qa.openoffice.org/issue_handling/project_issues.html#notification - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[tools-issues] [Issue 70256] Using Solver: obtaining / maintaining logfiles of reference build
To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue: http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=70256 User terrye changed the following: What|Old value |New value Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution| |WONTFIX --- Additional comments from [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Sep 14 17:50:14 + 2007 --- Since posting this, I have infact moved to a standard build for development and testing, for the reasons that I describe in: http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Ubuntu_Build_in_a_VMware_Appliance And given that the only cost of avoiding the hassle of usingthe tarball is to remember to kick off the build all, then I still don't understand if and why anyone should us the tarball. But yes, please mark this one as cleared. It serves no purpose leaving it as New - Please do not reply to this automatically generated notification from Issue Tracker. Please log onto the website and enter your comments. http://qa.openoffice.org/issue_handling/project_issues.html#notification - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[www-issues] [Issue 81568] access to user.services.op enoffice.org
To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue: http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=81568 Issue #|81568 Summary|access to user.services.openoffice.org Component|www Version|current Platform|All URL| OS/Version|Windows XP Status|UNCONFIRMED Status whiteboard| Keywords| Resolution| Issue type|TASK Priority|P3 Subcomponent|openoffice.org website general issues Assigned to|ssh2key Reported by|terrye --- Additional comments from [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Sep 14 02:13:58 + 2007 --- SSH2 access to the new box set up as user.services.openoffice.org as agreed with Clayton. Thanks. - Please do not reply to this automatically generated notification from Issue Tracker. Please log onto the website and enter your comments. http://qa.openoffice.org/issue_handling/project_issues.html#notification - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[www-issues] [Issue 81568] access to user.services.op enoffice.org
To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue: http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=81568 --- Additional comments from [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Sep 14 02:15:13 + 2007 --- Created an attachment (id=48225) TerryE public key - Please do not reply to this automatically generated notification from Issue Tracker. Please log onto the website and enter your comments. http://qa.openoffice.org/issue_handling/project_issues.html#notification - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[sc-issues] [Issue 63500] Calc ought to use shared s trings for cells
To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue: http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=63500 --- Additional comments from [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sun Jun 3 00:19:47 + 2007 --- A general Q here as I haven't trawled through the Calc code yet. How do you store propagated formulae? This is one of the biggest sources of repetition in spreadsheets. You know the scenario: =SUM(B$1:B27) in A27 is an invariant copy of =SUM(B$1:B10) in A10. In Excel this is truly invariant at a literal level in RC notation: =SUM(R1C[1]:RC[1]). Does this algorithm allow you to detect and fold such expressions? If so this would be a big plus. - Please do not reply to this automatically generated notification from Issue Tracker. Please log onto the website and enter your comments. http://qa.openoffice.org/issue_handling/project_issues.html#notification - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[api-issues] [Issue 73457] Memory Leak in all Basic t ype void Method calls
To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue: http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=73457 --- Additional comments from [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sun May 6 00:48:57 + 2007 --- I've done quite a lot of work on the analysis here, but it's the old problem -- finding the hours in the day to move this one forward. If you feel that we should make this publicly available then we should open another issue, but this doesn't relate to 73457 -- which was a specific leak and bug fix. - Please do not reply to this automatically generated notification from Issue Tracker. Please log onto the website and enter your comments. http://qa.openoffice.org/issue_handling/project_issues.html#notification - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[api-issues] [Issue 73457] Memory Leak in all Basic t ype void Method calls
To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue: http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=73457 User terrye changed the following: What|Old value |New value Attachment data| |Created an attachment (id= | |43254) Bug Analysis Workin | |g Paper --- Additional comments from [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Feb 22 00:16:26 + 2007 --- Created an attachment (id=43254) Bug Analysis Working Paper - Please do not reply to this automatically generated notification from Issue Tracker. Please log onto the website and enter your comments. http://qa.openoffice.org/issue_handling/project_issues.html#notification - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[sc-issues] [Issue 74556] Link External data needs g raphical user interface
To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue: http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=74556 --- Additional comments from [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Feb 15 10:57:18 + 2007 --- Functionally the issue here is that the import routine lists the tables in the form as HTML_n where n relates the nth table reference in the form. The problem form most users is that they have to use trial and error to work out which to load as they have absolutely no cues. In fact if you do a show source, find an element in the table that you want and search back counting the table tags, this gives you the n you need. A GUI would be nice as per Excel, but the main thing is that the user can simply reference the table that is wanted. A simpler functional alternative to the full GUI might be to parse the DOM and append the text strings from the first row so in the case of http://www.rate.co.uk/exrates.html for example, instead of listing HTML_13 you might get HTML_13 Country Currency $US £Stg €Euro ¥Yen (x100) This is enough to allow you to choose the table. - Please do not reply to this automatically generated notification from Issue Tracker. Please log onto the website and enter your comments. http://qa.openoffice.org/issue_handling/project_issues.html#notification - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[api-issues] [Issue 73457] Memory Leak in all Basic t ype void Method calls
To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue:
http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=73457
User terrye changed the following:
What|Old value |New value
Summary|Memory Leak in Basic Argum|Memory Leak in all Basic t
|ent Handling |ype void Method calls
--- Additional comments from [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sat Feb 10 12:44:14 +
2007 ---
*** FIX ***
The minimum impact change which removes this leak is a one line change to
sbxmod.cxx:
@@ -2057,7 +2057,8 @@
if( mpPar.Is() )
{
// this, als Element 0 eintragen, aber den Parent nicht
umsetzen!
- mphoPar-PutDirect( pThisCopy, 0 );
+ if (GetType() != SbxVOID) mpPar-PutDirect( pThisCopy, 0 );
SetParameters( NULL );
}
This change should be put in ASAP in 2.3 or 2.4, as it will close a major memory
leak in all applications which make heavy use of Basic.
Note that this whole code area has a number of implementation weaknesses that
impact heavily on runtime performance. I've drafted a paper on this and sent to
AB for comment. I will attach it as background once AB has had a chance to
comment.
-
Please do not reply to this automatically generated notification from
Issue Tracker. Please log onto the website and enter your comments.
http://qa.openoffice.org/issue_handling/project_issues.html#notification
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[api-issues] [Issue 73457] Memory Leak in all Basic t ype void Method calls
To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue: http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=73457 --- Additional comments from [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sat Feb 10 12:54:32 + 2007 --- By the way, the diff header line should read @@ -2057,7 +2057,7 @@ I removed a copy of my audit comment and forget to change the line count. Also the line number 2057 refers to the ooo-build 2.0.4 variant. Sorry. //Terry - Please do not reply to this automatically generated notification from Issue Tracker. Please log onto the website and enter your comments. http://qa.openoffice.org/issue_handling/project_issues.html#notification - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[framework-issues] [Issue 73511] Mismatch between Rnd / Ran domize Help and implementation
To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue: http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=73511 --- Additional comments from [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Feb 8 15:33:44 + 2007 --- Andreas, one side effect of tracking down issue 73457 is that I now really understand the invocation model is the basic RTE. Implementing full MS compatibility is doable here. At a minimum randomize should work as advertised. If you let me know which route you think is best: change the help to reflect what the code does or change the code to reflect what the help claims and I'll put this on my todo list. I do think its a P4, so I am not putting a hight priority on this one. //Terry - Please do not reply to this automatically generated notification from Issue Tracker. Please log onto the website and enter your comments. http://qa.openoffice.org/issue_handling/project_issues.html#notification - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[api-issues] [Issue 73457] Memory Leak in Basic Argum ent Handling
To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue: http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=73457 --- Additional comments from [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Feb 2 13:35:13 + 2007 --- Almost there. This one has taken more effort to get to the bottom of than I though. Sorry. One of the consequences of this diagnosis is that I've realised that the leak is a consequence of the assumption embedded in the code that all method calls return a value. Hence the leak occurs for ANY method call which doesn't. So if you replace the above For loop to a call to c.setValue(1) where c is ThisComponent.Sheets.Sheet1.getCellByPosition(0,0) for example. This extends the scope and impact of the leak to any basic code which is doing a lot of .set calls. Hence my recommendation to raise this to a P2. However, I hope to have the code fix finalised this weekend. //Terry - Please do not reply to this automatically generated notification from Issue Tracker. Please log onto the website and enter your comments. http://qa.openoffice.org/issue_handling/project_issues.html#notification - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[api-issues] [Issue 73457] Memory Leak in Basic Argum ent Handling
To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue: http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=73457 --- Additional comments from [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sun Jan 28 13:24:24 -0800 2007 --- If A is a subroutine, then the method call A(0) generates the Pcode statements FIND A, Empty, Args GET The StepFIND(“A”, Empty!Args) instruction call invokes SbInstance::FindElement which after a lot of cascade logic ends up the code branch which processes Methods. This invokes the following statement to make the call: SbxVariable* pNew = new SbxMethod( *((SbxMethod*)pElem) ); which cascades through the copy constructor for SbxVariable, after calling the copy constructors for the superclass SbxValue and the properties pPar and pInfo, this goes branch depending on where the value is readable (which it isn’t for a method call) and then issues a Broadcast(SBX_HINT_DATAWANTED). Broadcast is a virtual method on since this variable is a SbMethod, SbMethod::Broadcast is invoked. It is this Broadcast that is ultimately invokes the Run method which executes the method. This call cascade generates the class property SbxArray refArgv created in StepARGC() to hold the Argument Stack, the SbxVariable p created in LOADI() to hold the constant 0 used as the parameter, and the copy constructor for SbMethod creates a new SbMethod in. In a normal function call all three of these variables are ultimately destroyed and garbage collected in the various exit sequences as the routine unroll through the call stack. The first to go is the SbxArray that was referenced by refArgv. The StepPARAM() routine fetches the parameter with a p = refParams-Get( 0 ) and skips some processing handling SbxERROR and coercion of types, falling though to SetupArgs(p, nOp1) which does a p-SetParameters (NULL) if it is not a ByVal. This in turn does a SbxArrayRef::operator= assignment to NULL, which dereferences the previous contents and this triggers the SvRefBase garbage collection process of the now zero reference SbxArray. The SbMethod is destroyed later in SbMethod::Broadcast by the assignment pCst = NULL which invokes the SbMethod:: operator= which dereferences the underlying SbMethod, and finally the SbxVariable is referenced and deleted in pushing the return value. However all of this logic is built on the assumption that the method actually returns a value. In the case of a standard Sub call, the method type is SbxVOID so this assumption is flawed. The logic flow that is folloed in this case short-circuits code paths that dereference the values. I’ve verified this by not setting the return value on a function call and force a return on a subroutine call. The challenge is no longer understanding why the leak occurs but more what is the appropriate fix to remove it. My problem is that this whole code area seems to have fix-ups upon fix-ups. I’ve done this in my test harness to validate the diagnosis, but I don’t really want to propose another botch. Need to think about this one a bit more. - Please do not reply to this automatically generated notification from Issue Tracker. Please log onto the website and enter your comments. http://qa.openoffice.org/issue_handling/project_issues.html#notification - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[framework-issues] [Issue 73511] Mismatch between Rnd / Ran domize Help and implementation
To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue: http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=73511 --- Additional comments from [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed Jan 17 18:20:20 -0800 2007 --- Thinking about this, going for full functional equivalence of the VBA rnd function is going to be a little difficult. I'm not sure what the zero and negative code would do because this involve holding [thread] static variables. Not sure how you'd easily do this in the Basic runtime model. - Please do not reply to this automatically generated notification from Issue Tracker. Please log onto the website and enter your comments. http://qa.openoffice.org/issue_handling/project_issues.html#notification - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[api-issues] [Issue 73457] Memory Leak in Basic Argum ent Handling
To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue: http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=73457 --- Additional comments from [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed Jan 17 18:16:28 -0800 2007 --- I've created a comparison test case, and hooked in the Ref Class series QueryDelete() method with backtraces to work out exactly where the code divergence is occuring. I need to recompile a few modules -O0 to make debugging and stepping easier, but hopefully I will be able to give you the exact bug and code fix by the weekend. //Terry - Please do not reply to this automatically generated notification from Issue Tracker. Please log onto the website and enter your comments. http://qa.openoffice.org/issue_handling/project_issues.html#notification - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[framework-issues] [Issue 73511] Mismatch between Rnd / Ran domize Help and implementation
To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue: http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=73511 Issue #|73511 Summary|Mismatch between Rnd / Randomize Help and implementati |on Component|framework Version|OOo 2.1 Platform|All URL| OS/Version|Windows XP Status|UNCONFIRMED Status whiteboard| Keywords| Resolution| Issue type|DEFECT Priority|P4 Subcomponent|scripting Assigned to|kr Reported by|terrye --- Additional comments from [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Jan 16 03:10:49 -0800 2007 --- Sorry but another one thrown up by answering an oooforum topic: http://www.oooforum.org/forum/viewtopic.phtml?t=51526 According to /basic/source/runtime/methods.cxx, the Rnd() RTL function actually just does a return (double)rand() / (double)RAND_MAX. Likewise the Randomise() statement (that is with no parameter does a nSeed = (INT16)rand() However the corresponding help (helpcontent2/source/text/sbasic/shared files 03080302.xhp and 03080301.xhp) incorrectly state that (Randomize:) If Number is omitted, the generator uses the current value of the system timer. This is patently not the case. (Rnd:) Parameters: Expression: Any numeric expression that defines how to generate random numbers. Less than zero: Always returns the same random number. Greater than zero: Returns the next random number in the sequence. Zero: Returns the random number that was last generated. Omitted: Returns the next random number in the sequence. If the same number is passed for each successive call to the Rnd function, the same random-number sequence is generated. This is because the Expression parameter is used as a starting point for the next number. Whoever wrote the help did so on the aspiration that these both worked like VBA (since the wording seems to be a paraphrase of the VBA help). However the code does nothing like this. You need to modify one or the other so that they are consistent. If you let me know which you prefer then I can give you the appropriate changes. BTW I recommend VBA compatibility, especially since the effect of Randomize() is to do no such thing ! - Please do not reply to this automatically generated notification from Issue Tracker. Please log onto the website and enter your comments. http://qa.openoffice.org/issue_handling/project_issues.html#notification - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[api-issues] [Issue 69930] Functions allowed as LVALU ES in Basic
To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue: http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=69930 --- Additional comments from [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Jan 15 01:28:24 -0800 2007 --- Andreas, I've checked the source. SbiRuntime::StepSTMNT even contains an explicit check and tolerates this one. Given that OOo Basic architecturally tolerates a function call in the context of a subroutine call, and the compiler as currently constructed defers the issue of binding a(i,j) to a function or an external public variable at runtime, you can't error on this one. My recommendation is to move this one to documentation and include an appropriate note in the next StarBasic Manual. - Please do not reply to this automatically generated notification from Issue Tracker. Please log onto the website and enter your comments. http://qa.openoffice.org/issue_handling/project_issues.html#notification - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[api-issues] [Issue 69930] Functions allowed as LVALU ES in Basic
To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue: http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=69930 --- Additional comments from [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Jan 15 01:28:48 -0800 2007 --- Andreas, I've checked the source. SbiRuntime::StepSTMNT even contains an explicit check and tolerates this one. Given that OOo Basic architecturally tolerates a function call in the context of a subroutine call, and the compiler as currently constructed defers the issue of binding a(i,j) to a function or an external public variable at runtime, you can't error on this one. My recommendation is to move this one to documentation and include an appropriate note in the next StarBasic Manual. - Please do not reply to this automatically generated notification from Issue Tracker. Please log onto the website and enter your comments. http://qa.openoffice.org/issue_handling/project_issues.html#notification - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[tools-issues] [Issue 70256] Using Solver: obtaining / maintaining logfiles of reference build
To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue: http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=70256 --- Additional comments from [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sun Jan 14 04:12:28 -0800 2007 --- @vg: Thanks for your constructive comment. I am now getting a better handle on the whole environment for delevelopers. Yet what I still cannot understand is the value of the solver tarball relative to the promenance you give it on your downloads site. If I am using CCACHE then the rebuild time for a new dot release is only a couple of hours -- which for most people is less significant then having to download what is approaching 1Gbyte. Also if you are using an ooo-build variant then you then have to worry about the interoperability of rebuilding your module which will be patched against the modules that you are defaulting from the standard solver. So the bottom line is that I still don't see how it is of use to a typical OOo developer. Have you yourselves any idea what % of developers use the solver tarball? - Please do not reply to this automatically generated notification from Issue Tracker. Please log onto the website and enter your comments. http://qa.openoffice.org/issue_handling/project_issues.html#notification - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[api-issues] [Issue 73457] Memory Leak in Basic Argum ent Handling
To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue: http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=73457 Issue #|73457 Summary|Memory Leak in Basic Argument Handling Component|api Version|OOo 2.1 Platform|All URL| OS/Version|All Status|UNCONFIRMED Status whiteboard| Keywords| Resolution| Issue type|DEFECT Priority|P4 Subcomponent|code Assigned to|jsc Reported by|terrye --- Additional comments from [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sun Jan 14 05:46:06 -0800 2007 --- Every basic subroutine call leaks approximately 216+24N bytes of memory where N is the number of arguments in the call *IF* N0. The following code fragment demonstrates this issue. Sub Main for i = 1 to 10: X(a,b): Next i End Sub Sub X(n,m) 'X=0 or even a=X End Sub There is no leak if the call is a function call (which sets the return value or there are no arguments. This happens on both the Linux and Windows builds. 2.0.3, 2.0.4 and 2.1 The issue seems to be related to referencing PARAM 0 within the subroutine / function if the parameter array has been contructed following an ARGC instruction. **Any** PARAM 0 instruction executed within the routine (even in the context of an RVALUE) triggers correct garbage collection of the argument array following the LEAVE. This memory is not reclaimed on document closure. In the case of Windows you need to exit entirely and disable quickstarter. I'll try to track it down a bit further, but this will need stepping through with the debugger. I've been aware of a bad memory leak that was occuring basic macro execution, and this will be an important one to fix. - Please do not reply to this automatically generated notification from Issue Tracker. Please log onto the website and enter your comments. http://qa.openoffice.org/issue_handling/project_issues.html#notification - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[api-issues] [Issue 73457] Memory Leak in Basic Argum ent Handling
To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue: http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=73457 User terrye changed the following: What|Old value |New value Priority|P4|P3 - Please do not reply to this automatically generated notification from Issue Tracker. Please log onto the website and enter your comments. http://qa.openoffice.org/issue_handling/project_issues.html#notification - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[tools-issues] [Issue 70256] Using Solver: obtaining / maintaining logfiles of reference build
To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue: http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=70256 --- Additional comments from [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sun Dec 31 14:42:51 -0800 2006 --- Nonetheless for the solver builds to be usable you need to know the context that they we build in: what Linux release and version in the case of Linux; what g++ compiler version was used; what projects were build and at what revision ... Otherwise you have no basis to know that the solver tree will interoperate with your configuration. At least you should include in it your make.log and which layered component versions (e.g. by including a g++ --v output) are used. Otherwise it is in practice unusable and you would do everyone who is attempting to build a favour by not wasting their time, and removing the public reference to the solver tarball. - Please do not reply to this automatically generated notification from Issue Tracker. Please log onto the website and enter your comments. http://qa.openoffice.org/issue_handling/project_issues.html#notification - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[sc-issues] [Issue 67774] Odd handling of DataArray pseudoProprty
To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue:
http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=67774
--- Additional comments from [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Dec 19 14:59:51 -0800
2006 ---
The subroutine
Sub assign(s,d)
d.DataArray = s.DataArray
End Sub
Generates the assembly
STMNT 19,0 (For-Level: 0)
assign:
STMNT 21,0 (For-Level: 0)
PARAM 2; Object
ELEMDataArray; Variant
PARAM 1; Object
ELEMDataArray; Variant
PUT
STMNT 22,0 (For-Level: 0)
LEAVE
As fas as I can see, the problem is in sbxvalue.cxx. The routine
SbxValue::Put( const SbxValues rVal ) contains the test to abort
the assignment if the objects are identical:
case SbxOBJECT:
if( !p-IsFixed() || p-aData.eType == SbxOBJECT )
{
// ist schon drin
if( p-aData.eType == SbxOBJECT p-aData.pObj == rVal.pObj )
break;
This is clearly flawed in some circumstances: break if ist schon drin is
the wrong thing to do in the case:
d.DataArray = s.DataArray
where d and s point to the same object.
-
Please do not reply to this automatically generated notification from
Issue Tracker. Please log onto the website and enter your comments.
http://qa.openoffice.org/issue_handling/project_issues.html#notification
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[api-issues] [Issue 69930] Functions allowed as LVALU ES in Basic
To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue: http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=69930 --- Additional comments from [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Dec 19 15:10:40 -0800 2006 --- Having had a look at the compiler output, the code generator generate the same code for: a(i) = a (i) + 1 that is: ARGC FIND i;Variant ARGV FIND a ARGC FIND i;Variant ARGV FIND a CONST 1 PLUS PUT whether a is an array or a function. This discrimination is carried out by the RTS in StepFIND. Not sure how to pick this one up in the current split of compiler/RTS. Suggest that this is introduced as Documentation caveat. - Please do not reply to this automatically generated notification from Issue Tracker. Please log onto the website and enter your comments. http://qa.openoffice.org/issue_handling/project_issues.html#notification - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[tools-issues] [Issue 70256] Using Solver: obtaining / maintaining logfiles of reference build
To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue: http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=70256 Issue #|70256 Summary|Using Solver: obtaining / maintaining logfiles of refe |rence build Component|tools Version|OOo 2.0.3 Platform|All URL| OS/Version|Windows XP Status|UNCONFIRMED Status whiteboard| Keywords| Resolution| Issue type|ENHANCEMENT Priority|P3 Subcomponent|configure Assigned to|rene Reported by|terrye --- Additional comments from [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Oct 10 01:32:58 -0700 2006 --- I want to use the OOC680_m7 reference source and solver to rebuild OOo after minor tweaks to one of the modules (basic). I want to minimise my start-up time in doing so and have so far failed. One of the key issues here is that lack of documentation on what the basis for creating the OOC680 (or any future solver tarball) is -- that is what was the reference Linux installation, what was that actual configration (gcc version...), etc. Whilst http://tools.openoffice.org/dev_docs/build_linux.html does provide a general discription, it doesn't provide this firm configuration data making it difficult for developers to replicate the solver environment simply. It would REALLY make life so much easier if as standard practice the solver tarballs were created from a script capable of being run as a *single* batch command, and the output (12) sent to a logfile (or better logfile per individual step). These logfiles should be maintained in the solver tree and hence also downloadable. This script should start with the clean-out of all the unxlngi4.pro directories, followed by the configure, bootstrap and build --all. This simple process would enable developers to compare their component versions, options, etc against the solver baseline and trace variations in the build against a solver baseline, and also determine where deviations against the reference solver build were occuring. Also it would be useful if you specfied what your actual Linux for the build was as this information is not listed by the configure script. For developers with limited time, it is easier to replicate your rig than to debug their own. - Please do not reply to this automatically generated notification from Issue Tracker. Please log onto the website and enter your comments. http://qa.openoffice.org/issue_handling/project_issues.html#notification - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[framework-issues] [Issue 58089] oo Basic: static variables looses content
To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue: http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=58089 --- Additional comments from [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Sep 28 00:09:58 -0700 2006 --- Andreas, This isn't how declarations work in VBA. In VBA joerg's comments would just be wrong! Static is a declaration, not an executable statement, so I would expect the following to act as a counter returning 1,2,3, ... in both OOB and VBA. Function cnt() Static a a = a + 1 cnt = a End Function I've checked and it does in both. But the 'failed' test below also now works, so I suspect that you've fixed this one and forgot to close it. //Terry - Please do not reply to this automatically generated notification from Issue Tracker. Please log onto the website and enter your comments. http://qa.openoffice.org/issue_handling/project_issues.html#notification - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[api-issues] [Issue 69930] Functions allowed as LVALU ES in Basic
To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue: http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=69930 Issue #|69930 Summary|Functions allowed as LVALUES in Basic Component|api Version|OOo 2.0.3 Platform|All URL| OS/Version|All Status|UNCONFIRMED Status whiteboard| Keywords| Resolution| Issue type|DEFECT Priority|P3 Subcomponent|code Assigned to|ab Reported by|terrye --- Additional comments from [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Sep 28 00:35:00 -0700 2006 --- In OO Basic functions are tolerated as Lvalues (This is not the case in VBA). Sub main() b = 1 MsgBox b End Sub Function b() b = 3 End Function This prints out 3. This is particularly dangerous where programmers are NOT using Option Explicit and have the routine in a separate module, so they think that they are using an implicitly declared local variable. OOB should throw up a compile error if functions are used as LVALUES as does VBA. - Please do not reply to this automatically generated notification from Issue Tracker. Please log onto the website and enter your comments. http://qa.openoffice.org/issue_handling/project_issues.html#notification - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[api-issues] [Issue 69252] Inconsistent handling of B asic With Statements
To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue: http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=69252 Issue #|69252 Summary|Inconsistent handling of Basic With Statements Component|api Version|1.0.0 Platform|All URL| OS/Version|All Status|UNCONFIRMED Status whiteboard| Keywords| Resolution| Issue type|ENHANCEMENT Priority|P3 Subcomponent|code Assigned to|ab Reported by|terrye --- Additional comments from [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Sep 4 18:13:22 -0700 2006 --- Another incompatibity between VBA and OOoBasic FYI: i=1 With ThisComponent.Sheets(i) ' or ActiveWorkbook.Sheet(i) in VBA MsgBox .Name i = 2 MsgBox .Name End With prints Sheet2 and Sheet3 in Calc/OOoB but Sheet1 and Sheet1 in Excel/VBA. (Ignoring the difference in offset which is a feature of the base count for Sheet collections varying), the main point to note that OOo treats With x as a symbolic macro substituting x before the appropriate bare dots. VBA treats With x as Dim tmp000x=x then substitutes tmp00x before the appropriate bare dots. In otherwords, VBA evaluates With by value and OOoB evaluates it by reference. This difference can cause nasty migration surprises, and the value form also generates a lot more efficient runtime Pcode. The basic compiler should be changed to be consistent with VBA at least for the Option Compatible mode. - Please do not reply to this automatically generated notification from Issue Tracker. Please log onto the website and enter your comments. http://qa.openoffice.org/issue_handling/project_issues.html#notification - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[api-issues] [Issue 68059] Basic Option Compatible + opt args bug
To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue: http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=68059 --- Additional comments from [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Sep 4 18:25:18 -0700 2006 --- Andreas, ignore the comment about ParamArray -- I didn't have Option Compatible enabled. The following gives the same answer for both VBA and OOoBasic if it is enabled: Sub Main MsgBox a(1, 2, 3, 4, 5) End Sub Function a(ParamArray x()) b = 0 For i = LBound(x()) To UBound(x()) b = b + x(i) Next i a = b End Function - Please do not reply to this automatically generated notification from Issue Tracker. Please log onto the website and enter your comments. http://qa.openoffice.org/issue_handling/project_issues.html#notification - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[api-issues] [Issue 68059] Basic Option Compatible + opt args bug
To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue: http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=68059 --- Additional comments from [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Aug 25 10:15:06 -0700 2006 --- Actually the ability to drop earlier parameters is something that people do do with VBA so it isn't THAT exotic. People will trip over it when they migrate code. If the RTS just barfed then at least it would produce an understandable failure, but it doesn't -- it gives the wrong answer. This one will get some poor VBA migrator cursing because it will be extremely difficult to track down in migration testing. My feeling is we could live with it IF we maintained a central incompatability and know features list that was referenceable from the main OpenOffice site. I will look at my test case for the ParamArray and get back to you with an apology / post a separate issue with test case if necessary. As part of my VBA / OOo Basic comparison I came up with some other anomolies / bugs / features by design. What's the best way to proceed with these? post them as individual issues or send you a discussion paper for first triage and then post the ones that merit tracking as separate issues? - Please do not reply to this automatically generated notification from Issue Tracker. Please log onto the website and enter your comments. http://qa.openoffice.org/issue_handling/project_issues.html#notification - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[sc-issues] [Issue 30215] Further thoughts on row li mits
To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue: http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=30215 --- Additional comments from [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed Aug 23 05:48:39 -0700 2006 --- This came up on an OOoForum debate, where a newbie was asking why charting only still supports 32K rows rather than 64K. I pointed out that Excel had the same limitation. I also made the following observation whch Bob asked me to replicate here: Why on earth when we upped the various limits in 2.0 match Excel feature by feature, rather than just go the whole hog and up the limits as sensible. I occasionally hit a 64K row limit importing CSVs and doing query result sets. Upping this limit to 256K for examole would have been a brilliant step past Excel. The 32K/256 (and then 64K/256) limits are buried in the history of how Excel stored its cell data sparsely with a 4 byte descriptor prefix (type/row/column). I am sure that you use nothing like this is Calc, so why on earth impose such arbitrary and annoying constraints. As I say it sould have useful product differentiation. - Please do not reply to this automatically generated notification from Issue Tracker. Please log onto the website and enter your comments. http://qa.openoffice.org/issue_handling/project_issues.html#notification - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[sc-issues] [Issue 67774] Odd handling of DataArray pseudoProprty
To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue: http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=67774 User terrye changed the following: What|Old value |New value Assigned to|spreadsheet |ab --- Additional comments from [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sun Aug 20 06:23:10 -0700 2006 --- This is an in-progress update. No immediate action required. I've had a further look at this one. In fact it doesn't seem to be anything to do with the Calc engine. It is a combination of two errors, both in the API / Basic RTS, and have therefore moved it to Andreas B to monitor. I have included a small Calc Test Harness to how the bug manifests itself more clearly. (1) The RTS evaluates d.DataArray = s.DataArray differently depending on whether EqualUnoObjects(d,s) is true or false. The timings indicate that the RTL is going down completely different code paths for these two cases, and only when using the Pseudo-property DataArray. (2) The trend in run times is disturbing and indicates that you've got leakage / fragmentation in your storage management. This shouln't be happening at this scale? Are you using the STL default allocator? I will by putting up my own OOo test bed within a week or so, so when I get time I'll buzz the code through and give you a proposed set of exact line fixes. - Please do not reply to this automatically generated notification from Issue Tracker. Please log onto the website and enter your comments. http://qa.openoffice.org/issue_handling/project_issues.html#notification - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[sc-issues] [Issue 67774] Odd handling of DataArray pseudoProprty
To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue: http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=67774 User terrye changed the following: What|Old value |New value Attachment data| |Created an attachment (id= | |38655) Q n D Calc ODS to d | |emonstrate feature --- Additional comments from [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sun Aug 20 06:27:11 -0700 2006 --- Created an attachment (id=38655) Q n D Calc ODS to demonstrate feature - Please do not reply to this automatically generated notification from Issue Tracker. Please log onto the website and enter your comments. http://qa.openoffice.org/issue_handling/project_issues.html#notification - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[api-issues] [Issue 68059] Basic Option Compatible + opt args bug
To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue: http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=68059 Issue #|68059 Summary|Basic Option Compatible + opt args bug Component|api Version|OOo 2.0.3 Platform|All URL| OS/Version|Windows XP Status|UNCONFIRMED Status whiteboard| Keywords| Resolution| Issue type|DEFECT Priority|P3 Subcomponent|code Assigned to|jsc Reported by|terrye --- Additional comments from [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Aug 1 18:01:35 -0700 2006 --- Options Compatible + Optional Arguments still don't work properly. (1) ParamArray is Still not supported (2) IsMissing gets confused if there arePositional Args past the one being tested - see attached code fragment. Calls 4 and 5 should give the same answer. Note that the Compiler barfs at the Function Definition (B=4 clause) if the option isn't set and CompatibilityMode(True) or ... False have no effect, which seems the intended functionality. //Terry Option Compatible Sub Main CompatibilityMode(True) x = AA() 'OK returns 11 x = AA(1) 'OK returns 9 x = AA(A:=1) 'OK returns 9 x = AA(,1) 'OK returns 5 x = AA(B:=1) 'WRONG IsMissing(a) doesn't work. Returns 2 x = AA(2,1)'OK returns 4 x = AA(B:=1, A:=2) 'OK returns 4 End Sub Private Function AA(Optional ByVal A, Optional B=4) If isMissing(a) Then a = 3 EndIf AA = a+2*b End Function - Please do not reply to this automatically generated notification from Issue Tracker. Please log onto the website and enter your comments. http://qa.openoffice.org/issue_handling/project_issues.html#notification - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[sc-issues] [Issue 67774] Odd handling of DataArray pseudoProprty
To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue: http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=67774 Issue #|67774 Summary|Odd handling of DataArray pseudoProprty Component|Spreadsheet Version|OOo 2.0.3 Platform|All URL| OS/Version|Windows XP Status|UNCONFIRMED Status whiteboard| Keywords| Resolution| Issue type|DEFECT Priority|P3 Subcomponent|code Assigned to|spreadsheet Reported by|terrye --- Additional comments from [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Jul 25 15:13:04 -0700 2006 --- I wrote a macro which included the use of DataArray access to convert columns containing formulas to their literal equivalent (as in copy/paste value). I first tried oRange.DataArray = oRange.DataArray which is supposed to be semantically equivalent to oRange.setDataArray(oRange.GetDataArray() but it isn't -- the first leaves the formulas unchanged and the second doesn't. I simplified it down to the following code which repeatedly shows the issue: rB2 = ThisComponent.Sheets(0).getCellByPosition(1, 1) rB2a = rB2 rB2b = ThisComponent.Sheets(0).getCellByPosition(1, 1) rB2.Formula = =Row() : rB2.DataArray = rB2.DataArray : Print rB2.Formula rB2.Formula = =Row() : rB2a.DataArray = rB2.DataArray: Print rB2.Formula rB2.Formula = =Row() : rB2b.DataArray = rB2.DataArray: Print rB2.Formula rB2.Formula = =Row() : t=rB2.DataArray : rB2.DataArray=t : Print rB2.Formula rB2.Formula = =Row() : rB2.setDataArray(rB2.getDataArray): Print rB2.Formula 1 2 return the ROW() formula, 3-4 return the value. It's the fact that the second fails and the third works. Clearly it fails when the variants are pointing to the same object (e.g. rB2 and RB2A) as opposed to two separate but identical objects (R2 and R2B) - Please do not reply to this automatically generated notification from Issue Tracker. Please log onto the website and enter your comments. http://qa.openoffice.org/issue_handling/project_issues.html#notification - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
