[Libreoffice-bugs] [Bug 144079] Stylist: New Text Styles view misses interactions for CS
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=144079 --- Comment #5 from Mike Kaganski --- (In reply to Heiko Tietze from comment #4) Possibly better to close, and to have new when (if?) the work resumes on the main problem. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
[Libreoffice-bugs] [Bug 149276] Assertion failed: (dynamic_cast(static_cast(pOldValue)->pChangedFormat)), function TriggerNodeUpdate, file ndtxt.cxx, line
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=149276 --- Comment #2 from Telesto --- Created attachment 180358 --> https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/attachment.cgi?id=180358=edit Example file -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
[Libreoffice-bugs] [Bug 149275] EDITING UI - Bug when selecting text in formula
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=149275 Mike Kaganski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE --- Comment #1 from Mike Kaganski --- *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 145248 *** -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
[Libreoffice-bugs] [Bug 149276] Assertion failed: (dynamic_cast(static_cast(pOldValue)->pChangedFormat)), function TriggerNodeUpdate, file ndtxt.cxx, line
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=149276 --- Comment #1 from Telesto --- Created attachment 180357 --> https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/attachment.cgi?id=180357=edit BT with symbols -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
[Libreoffice-bugs] [Bug 149276] New: Assertion failed: (dynamic_cast(static_cast(pOldValue)->pChangedFormat)), function TriggerNodeUpdate, file ndtxt.cxx,
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=149276 Bug ID: 149276 Summary: Assertion failed: (dynamic_cast(static_cast(pOldValue)->pChangedFormat)), function TriggerNodeUpdate, file ndtxt.cxx, line 5275. Product: LibreOffice Version: 7.4.0.0 alpha0+ Master Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: medium Component: Writer Assignee: libreoffice-bugs@lists.freedesktop.org Reporter: tele...@surfxs.nl Description: Assertion failed: (dynamic_cast(static_cast(pOldValue)->pChangedFormat)), function TriggerNodeUpdate, file ndtxt.cxx, line 5275. Steps to Reproduce: 1. Open the attached file (slightly modified version of the one at bug 149268) 2. Ignore the Macro, not important 3. CTRL+A 4. CTRL+C 5. CTRL+N 6. CTRL+V 7. CTRL+Z Actual Results: Assert Expected Results: No assert Reproducible: Always User Profile Reset: No Additional Info: Version: 7.4.0.0.alpha1+ / LibreOffice Community Build ID: 62531ec1091c7b3f6a3577889a18234790ec716d CPU threads: 8; OS: Mac OS X 12.3.1; UI render: default; VCL: osx Locale: nl-NL (nl_NL.UTF-8); UI: en-US Calc: threaded -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
[Libreoffice-bugs] [Bug 138205] "Version incompatibility. Incorrect file version" when trying to open PDF
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=138205 Jacobhue changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|INSUFFICIENTDATA|FIXED --- Comment #6 from Jacobhue --- Your writing is really informative, especially because it's so meaningful and updated. Thanks for sharing this wonderful post! https://www.tcswebmail.info/ https://www.upsers.fyi/ https://www.prepaidgiftbalance.fyi/ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
[Libreoffice-bugs] [Bug 136297] Spreadsheet Theme throws BASIC runtime error
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=136297 Jacobhue changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|DUPLICATE |FIXED --- Comment #5 from Jacobhue --- Your writing is really great. I’m so glad I read it. It kept me hooked the whole way through. https://www.imybkexperience.com/ https://www.mykfc-experience.com/ https://www.mybpcreditcard.one/ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
[Libreoffice-bugs] [Bug 103947] LibreOffice Draw can not save as (replace) the opening pdf to itself, Must Rename.
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=103947 --- Comment #16 from Jacobhue --- Thanks for this information. I really appreciate the information that you have provided. https://www.omegle.fyi/ https://www.chatrandom.one/ https://www.bazoocam.fyi/ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
[Libreoffice-bugs] [Bug 149275] New: EDITING UI - Bug when selecting text in formula
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=149275 Bug ID: 149275 Summary: EDITING UI - Bug when selecting text in formula Product: LibreOffice Version: 7.3.3.2 release Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: medium Component: Calc Assignee: libreoffice-bugs@lists.freedesktop.org Reporter: santo@hotmail.com When selecting text in a formula, if you make this procedure: 1) Select some text of a formula with the mouse. 2) DONT release left button yet, but move the mouse pointer below the formula textbox, just a little outside until pointer changes to a "not allowed" symbol. 3) NOW you can release the button. 4) Without clicking, move the pointer side to side over the text. 5) You will see the bug, it must be killed! Ok, now the pointer is selecting the text without the mouse button being clicked. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
Re: trigger MapMode ScaleX change in writer
On Wednesday 25 of May 2022, Mark Hung wrote: > Hi, > > I'm refactoring SwFntObj::DrawText() in sw/soucre/core/txtnode/fntcache.c, > and writing unit test for it. I'm looking for a way to trigger the > situation that > GetMapMode().GetScaleX() doesn't equal to 1. Getting GetScaleX() not be 1 is easy here, I just need to open a new Writer document and Ctrl+wheel to zoom. Are you sure that is the part you have a problem reproducing? -- Luboš Luňák l.lu...@collabora.com
[Libreoffice-bugs] [Bug 149262] LibreOffice 7.3.3 not opening in Windows 10 Home
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=149262 Tracy changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|1 |0 Status|NEEDINFO|UNCONFIRMED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
[Libreoffice-bugs] [Bug 149262] LibreOffice 7.3.3 not opening in Windows 10 Home
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=149262 --- Comment #3 from Tracy --- I have deleted my LO user profile. LO is still not launching. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
[Libreoffice-bugs] [Bug 149274] bestblogsan
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=149274 bestblogsan changed: What|Removed |Added URL||https://www.bestblogsandart ||icles.com -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
[Libreoffice-bugs] [Bug 149274] New: bestblogsan
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=149274 Bug ID: 149274 Summary: bestblogsan Product: LibreOffice Version: 3.3.1 release Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: medium Component: Android Viewer Assignee: libreoffice-bugs@lists.freedesktop.org Reporter: bestblogsa...@outlook.com Description: That's great, I like it so much, come on!putting a balance in life may be as easy as carving out time regularly to indulge in an activity of your choice. yahoo lifestyles sea chats with personalities who proportion their ardour for a game or well-being pastime they revel in, which helps them tackle the world with zeal. we hope this month-to-month series will encourage you to locate an hobby so that it will upload that flicker in your lifestyles. https://www.bestblogsandarticles.com Actual Results: The complete look of your internet site is remarkable, not to mention the content material! Expected Results: The complete look of your internet site is remarkable, not to mention the content material! Reproducible: Always User Profile Reset: Yes Additional Info: The complete look of your internet site is remarkable, not to mention the content material! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
[Libreoffice-bugs] [Bug 149264] assert in checkGlyphsEqual() when loading sw/qa/extras/uiwriter/data/tdf104649.docx
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=149264 --- Comment #5 from Luboš Luňák --- I expect https://gerrit.libreoffice.org/c/core/+/134891 handles this? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
[Libreoffice-bugs] [Bug 144997] Occasionally, text or numbers in the formula bar are not highlighted for editing correctly
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=144997 QA Administrators changed: What|Removed |Added Whiteboard| QA:needsComment| -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
[Libreoffice-bugs] [Bug 149020] missing controls in flatpak version of LibreOffice
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=149020 QA Administrators changed: What|Removed |Added Whiteboard|| QA:needsComment -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
[Libreoffice-bugs] [Bug 149015] Impress: Improve search for animations
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=149015 QA Administrators changed: What|Removed |Added Whiteboard|| QA:needsComment -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
[Libreoffice-bugs] [Bug 149265] LibreCalc displays white lines over a background image
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=149265 QA Administrators changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEEDINFO|UNCONFIRMED Ever confirmed|1 |0 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
[Libreoffice-bugs] [Bug 149265] LibreCalc displays white lines over a background image
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=149265 --- Comment #7 from QA Administrators --- [Automated Action] NeedInfo-To-Unconfirmed -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
[Libreoffice-bugs] [Bug 145300] Viewing - bad horizontal scroll bar too skinny to be able to read multipage Writer document
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=145300 QA Administrators changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEEDINFO|RESOLVED Resolution|--- |INSUFFICIENTDATA -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
[Libreoffice-bugs] [Bug 145300] Viewing - bad horizontal scroll bar too skinny to be able to read multipage Writer document
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=145300 --- Comment #3 from QA Administrators --- Dear A_Artemis9, Please read this message in its entirety before proceeding. Your bug report is being closed as INSUFFICIENTDATA due to inactivity and a lack of information which is needed in order to accurately reproduce and confirm the problem. We encourage you to retest your bug against the latest release. If the issue is still present in the latest stable release, we need the following information (please ignore any that you've already provided): a) Provide details of your system including your operating system and the latest version of LibreOffice that you have confirmed the bug to be present b) Provide easy to reproduce steps – the simpler the better c) Provide any test case(s) which will help us confirm the problem d) Provide screenshots of the problem if you think it might help e) Read all comments and provide any requested information Once all of this is done, please set the bug back to UNCONFIRMED and we will attempt to reproduce the issue. Please do not: a) respond via email b) update the version field in the bug or any of the other details on the top section of our bug tracker Warm Regards, QA Team MassPing-NeedInfo-FollowUp -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
[Libreoffice-bugs] [Bug 145290] Slow scrolling with gtk3
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=145290 QA Administrators changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEEDINFO|RESOLVED Resolution|--- |INSUFFICIENTDATA -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
[Libreoffice-bugs] [Bug 145290] Slow scrolling with gtk3
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=145290 --- Comment #8 from QA Administrators --- Dear gianluca.dequecker, Please read this message in its entirety before proceeding. Your bug report is being closed as INSUFFICIENTDATA due to inactivity and a lack of information which is needed in order to accurately reproduce and confirm the problem. We encourage you to retest your bug against the latest release. If the issue is still present in the latest stable release, we need the following information (please ignore any that you've already provided): a) Provide details of your system including your operating system and the latest version of LibreOffice that you have confirmed the bug to be present b) Provide easy to reproduce steps – the simpler the better c) Provide any test case(s) which will help us confirm the problem d) Provide screenshots of the problem if you think it might help e) Read all comments and provide any requested information Once all of this is done, please set the bug back to UNCONFIRMED and we will attempt to reproduce the issue. Please do not: a) respond via email b) update the version field in the bug or any of the other details on the top section of our bug tracker Warm Regards, QA Team MassPing-NeedInfo-FollowUp -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
[Libreoffice-bugs] [Bug 86066] [META] Bugs and improvements to the status bar
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=86066 Bug 86066 depends on bug 144929, which changed state. Bug 144929 Summary: the new "document saved" icon and its ambiguous use https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=144929 What|Removed |Added Status|NEEDINFO|RESOLVED Resolution|--- |INSUFFICIENTDATA -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
[Libreoffice-bugs] [Bug 144929] the new "document saved" icon and its ambiguous use
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=144929 QA Administrators changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEEDINFO|RESOLVED Resolution|--- |INSUFFICIENTDATA -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
[Libreoffice-bugs] [Bug 144929] the new "document saved" icon and its ambiguous use
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=144929 --- Comment #4 from QA Administrators --- Dear peter josvai, Please read this message in its entirety before proceeding. Your bug report is being closed as INSUFFICIENTDATA due to inactivity and a lack of information which is needed in order to accurately reproduce and confirm the problem. We encourage you to retest your bug against the latest release. If the issue is still present in the latest stable release, we need the following information (please ignore any that you've already provided): a) Provide details of your system including your operating system and the latest version of LibreOffice that you have confirmed the bug to be present b) Provide easy to reproduce steps – the simpler the better c) Provide any test case(s) which will help us confirm the problem d) Provide screenshots of the problem if you think it might help e) Read all comments and provide any requested information Once all of this is done, please set the bug back to UNCONFIRMED and we will attempt to reproduce the issue. Please do not: a) respond via email b) update the version field in the bug or any of the other details on the top section of our bug tracker Warm Regards, QA Team MassPing-NeedInfo-FollowUp -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
[Libreoffice-bugs] [Bug 139248] No control handles on text box
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=139248 --- Comment #6 from QA Administrators --- Dear Menoo, This bug has been in NEEDINFO status with no change for at least 6 months. Please provide the requested information as soon as possible and mark the bug as UNCONFIRMED. Due to regular bug tracker maintenance, if the bug is still in NEEDINFO status with no change in 30 days the QA team will close the bug as INSUFFICIENTDATA due to lack of needed information. For more information about our NEEDINFO policy please read the wiki located here: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/QA/Bugzilla/Fields/Status/NEEDINFO If you have already provided the requested information, please mark the bug as UNCONFIRMED so that the QA team knows that the bug is ready to be confirmed. Thank you for helping us make LibreOffice even better for everyone! Warm Regards, QA Team MassPing-NeedInfo-Ping -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
[Libreoffice-bugs] [Bug 138955] Deleting whitespace when pasting Calc cell to Writer
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=138955 --- Comment #3 from QA Administrators --- Dear alan-sloma, This bug has been in NEEDINFO status with no change for at least 6 months. Please provide the requested information as soon as possible and mark the bug as UNCONFIRMED. Due to regular bug tracker maintenance, if the bug is still in NEEDINFO status with no change in 30 days the QA team will close the bug as INSUFFICIENTDATA due to lack of needed information. For more information about our NEEDINFO policy please read the wiki located here: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/QA/Bugzilla/Fields/Status/NEEDINFO If you have already provided the requested information, please mark the bug as UNCONFIRMED so that the QA team knows that the bug is ready to be confirmed. Thank you for helping us make LibreOffice even better for everyone! Warm Regards, QA Team MassPing-NeedInfo-Ping -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
[Libreoffice-bugs] [Bug 99482] Changing mode from View menu doesn't change Display mode icon
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=99482 --- Comment #13 from QA Administrators --- Dear Yan Pas, To make sure we're focusing on the bugs that affect our users today, LibreOffice QA is asking bug reporters and confirmers to retest open, confirmed bugs which have not been touched for over a year. There have been thousands of bug fixes and commits since anyone checked on this bug report. During that time, it's possible that the bug has been fixed, or the details of the problem have changed. We'd really appreciate your help in getting confirmation that the bug is still present. If you have time, please do the following: Test to see if the bug is still present with the latest version of LibreOffice from https://www.libreoffice.org/download/ If the bug is present, please leave a comment that includes the information from Help - About LibreOffice. If the bug is NOT present, please set the bug's Status field to RESOLVED-WORKSFORME and leave a comment that includes the information from Help - About LibreOffice. Please DO NOT Update the version field Reply via email (please reply directly on the bug tracker) Set the bug's Status field to RESOLVED - FIXED (this status has a particular meaning that is not appropriate in this case) If you want to do more to help you can test to see if your issue is a REGRESSION. To do so: 1. Download and install oldest version of LibreOffice (usually 3.3 unless your bug pertains to a feature added after 3.3) from https://downloadarchive.documentfoundation.org/libreoffice/old/ 2. Test your bug 3. Leave a comment with your results. 4a. If the bug was present with 3.3 - set version to 'inherited from OOo'; 4b. If the bug was not present in 3.3 - add 'regression' to keyword Feel free to come ask questions or to say hello in our QA chat: https://web.libera.chat/?settings=#libreoffice-qa Thank you for helping us make LibreOffice even better for everyone! Warm Regards, QA Team MassPing-UntouchedBug -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
[Libreoffice-bugs] [Bug 94631] Chinese font name does not display well in font lists when the Language of UI is not Chinese
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=94631 --- Comment #11 from QA Administrators --- Dear cyanshrike, To make sure we're focusing on the bugs that affect our users today, LibreOffice QA is asking bug reporters and confirmers to retest open, confirmed bugs which have not been touched for over a year. There have been thousands of bug fixes and commits since anyone checked on this bug report. During that time, it's possible that the bug has been fixed, or the details of the problem have changed. We'd really appreciate your help in getting confirmation that the bug is still present. If you have time, please do the following: Test to see if the bug is still present with the latest version of LibreOffice from https://www.libreoffice.org/download/ If the bug is present, please leave a comment that includes the information from Help - About LibreOffice. If the bug is NOT present, please set the bug's Status field to RESOLVED-WORKSFORME and leave a comment that includes the information from Help - About LibreOffice. Please DO NOT Update the version field Reply via email (please reply directly on the bug tracker) Set the bug's Status field to RESOLVED - FIXED (this status has a particular meaning that is not appropriate in this case) If you want to do more to help you can test to see if your issue is a REGRESSION. To do so: 1. Download and install oldest version of LibreOffice (usually 3.3 unless your bug pertains to a feature added after 3.3) from https://downloadarchive.documentfoundation.org/libreoffice/old/ 2. Test your bug 3. Leave a comment with your results. 4a. If the bug was present with 3.3 - set version to 'inherited from OOo'; 4b. If the bug was not present in 3.3 - add 'regression' to keyword Feel free to come ask questions or to say hello in our QA chat: https://web.libera.chat/?settings=#libreoffice-qa Thank you for helping us make LibreOffice even better for everyone! Warm Regards, QA Team MassPing-UntouchedBug -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
[Libreoffice-bugs] [Bug 79583] Other: Nonstandard Paper Size doesn't print
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=79583 --- Comment #14 from QA Administrators --- Dear elicoten, To make sure we're focusing on the bugs that affect our users today, LibreOffice QA is asking bug reporters and confirmers to retest open, confirmed bugs which have not been touched for over a year. There have been thousands of bug fixes and commits since anyone checked on this bug report. During that time, it's possible that the bug has been fixed, or the details of the problem have changed. We'd really appreciate your help in getting confirmation that the bug is still present. If you have time, please do the following: Test to see if the bug is still present with the latest version of LibreOffice from https://www.libreoffice.org/download/ If the bug is present, please leave a comment that includes the information from Help - About LibreOffice. If the bug is NOT present, please set the bug's Status field to RESOLVED-WORKSFORME and leave a comment that includes the information from Help - About LibreOffice. Please DO NOT Update the version field Reply via email (please reply directly on the bug tracker) Set the bug's Status field to RESOLVED - FIXED (this status has a particular meaning that is not appropriate in this case) If you want to do more to help you can test to see if your issue is a REGRESSION. To do so: 1. Download and install oldest version of LibreOffice (usually 3.3 unless your bug pertains to a feature added after 3.3) from https://downloadarchive.documentfoundation.org/libreoffice/old/ 2. Test your bug 3. Leave a comment with your results. 4a. If the bug was present with 3.3 - set version to 'inherited from OOo'; 4b. If the bug was not present in 3.3 - add 'regression' to keyword Feel free to come ask questions or to say hello in our QA chat: https://web.libera.chat/?settings=#libreoffice-qa Thank you for helping us make LibreOffice even better for everyone! Warm Regards, QA Team MassPing-UntouchedBug -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
[Libreoffice-bugs] [Bug 55057] Unable to select Opera as mail client.
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=55057 --- Comment #10 from QA Administrators --- Dear Frank Bell, To make sure we're focusing on the bugs that affect our users today, LibreOffice QA is asking bug reporters and confirmers to retest open, confirmed bugs which have not been touched for over a year. There have been thousands of bug fixes and commits since anyone checked on this bug report. During that time, it's possible that the bug has been fixed, or the details of the problem have changed. We'd really appreciate your help in getting confirmation that the bug is still present. If you have time, please do the following: Test to see if the bug is still present with the latest version of LibreOffice from https://www.libreoffice.org/download/ If the bug is present, please leave a comment that includes the information from Help - About LibreOffice. If the bug is NOT present, please set the bug's Status field to RESOLVED-WORKSFORME and leave a comment that includes the information from Help - About LibreOffice. Please DO NOT Update the version field Reply via email (please reply directly on the bug tracker) Set the bug's Status field to RESOLVED - FIXED (this status has a particular meaning that is not appropriate in this case) If you want to do more to help you can test to see if your issue is a REGRESSION. To do so: 1. Download and install oldest version of LibreOffice (usually 3.3 unless your bug pertains to a feature added after 3.3) from https://downloadarchive.documentfoundation.org/libreoffice/old/ 2. Test your bug 3. Leave a comment with your results. 4a. If the bug was present with 3.3 - set version to 'inherited from OOo'; 4b. If the bug was not present in 3.3 - add 'regression' to keyword Feel free to come ask questions or to say hello in our QA chat: https://web.libera.chat/?settings=#libreoffice-qa Thank you for helping us make LibreOffice even better for everyone! Warm Regards, QA Team MassPing-UntouchedBug -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
[Libreoffice-bugs] [Bug 149267] grid lines for .xlsx file
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=149267 --- Comment #2 from Randy Croan --- Created attachment 180355 --> https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/attachment.cgi?id=180355=edit test calc file with grid lines and page breaks hidden upgraded to v7.3.3.2 (x64) created this test file with grid lines and page breaks hidden save as .xlsx file close LibreOffice Calc open .xlsx file for me the grid lines are back -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
[Libreoffice-bugs] [Bug 149273] New: Clicking on 'Entries' tab when inserting/editing an index crashes Writer (Mac OS)
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=149273 Bug ID: 149273 Summary: Clicking on 'Entries' tab when inserting/editing an index crashes Writer (Mac OS) Product: LibreOffice Version: 7.3.3.2 release Hardware: x86-64 (AMD64) OS: macOS (All) Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: medium Component: Writer Assignee: libreoffice-bugs@lists.freedesktop.org Reporter: skh1...@hotmail.com Description: When either inserting a new or editing an existing index (table of contents or alphabetical index, at least) in the 'Table of Contents, Index, or Bibliography' dialogue. Clicking on the 'Entries' tab immediately crashes Writer without any error dialogue. This happens even on a new empty file. Steps to Reproduce: 1. Create a new Writer document _OR_ open an existing one. 2. Choose in the menu 'Insert|Table of Contents and Index|Table of Contents, Index, or Bibliography' _OR_ right-click on an existing index or TOC and select 'Edit Index'. 3. When the dialogue 'Table of Contents, Index, or Bibliography' opens, click the 'Entries' tab. Actual Results: Writer immediately crashes without warning. Expected Results: The 'Entries' tab should open in the dialogue with 'Level', 'Structure and Formatting', and a preview panes. Reproducible: Always User Profile Reset: Yes OpenGL enabled: Yes Additional Info: I have verified this behaviour on a few different documents. After this, I have installed the 7.2.7.2 release and I was able to at least open the 'Entries' tab (did not yet try actually editing). After this, when I try to select 'Edit index' from the mouse menu over an existing index, the Writer crashes even before showing the 'Table of Contents, Index, or Bibliography' dialogue. I am still able to bring this dialogue up when inserting a new index, but clicking on the 'Entries' tab crashes it immediately as before. So, the change in behaviour is that before installing the 7.2.7.2 release beside the 7.3.3.2, I was able to invoke the 'Table of Contents, Index, or Bibliography' dialogue from the mouse context menu 'Edit Index', but after that the Writer crashes before displaying the dialogue. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
trigger MapMode ScaleX change in writer
Hi, I'm refactoring SwFntObj::DrawText() in sw/soucre/core/txtnode/fntcache.c, and writing unit test for it. I'm looking for a way to trigger the situation that GetMapMode().GetScaleX() doesn't equal to 1. To be more specific, to trigger the case bStretch = true for following code snippet. const Fraction aTmp( 1, 1 ); bool bStretch = rInf.GetWidth() && (rInf.GetLen() > TextFrameIndex(1)) && bPrt && ( aTmp != rInf.GetOut().GetMapMode().GetScaleX() ); The bStretch decides whether to draw stretched text. Does anyone know how to do trigger the situation? It seems that none of the sw unit tests trigger that, scaling in the character property, or zoom in, print preview cause the value to change. -- Mark Hung
[Libreoffice-bugs] [Bug 149265] LibreCalc displays white lines over a background image
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=149265 --- Comment #6 from Michael --- One last observation. These images are very large, about 13777483. We have about 27 different spreadsheets active. They are needed to accommodate the many different logbook formats for the various ships and years. When I saved this spreadsheet and re-opened it, I got just one white line. I suspect I might see none or more if I did this repeatedly. However, just scrolling so the buttons on the side are completely out of view and then doing a Ctrl-Home, I see all the white lines. I did the same thing with a different spreadsheet that has a much smaller image: 4222314. No white lines appeared mo matter how I was moving around, or if I was entering data. So, it seems to have a problem with the very large images. Perhaps it is just my generic video card, i don't know. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
[Libreoffice-bugs] [Bug 149265] LibreCalc displays white lines over a background image
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=149265 --- Comment #5 from Michael --- I just went to the next day's image. After the date was set, I did a Ctrl-Home. No white lines. I moved around with arrow keys, no macros, so Cell C4 was top left in the Calc window. I entered a number in D5, did Ctrl-Home and the lines were there. While I was looking at the screen, Calc did an Auto-Save. Initially there were no white lines associated with the bottom two buttons, but they appeared after the Auto-Same. I'm not sure if this helps. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
[Libreoffice-bugs] [Bug 149265] LibreCalc displays white lines over a background image
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=149265 --- Comment #4 from Michael --- I have a couple of other observations. 1. I just noticed that when a new image is loaded, it is clean, that is no white lines. When I do Alt-J, which aligns the view so that the AM weather block is positioned nicely and sets the active cell to be the first data cell for the AM weather, the lines appear on the image. Because the weather block is aligned so that the top corner of the AM weather data is at the top left corner of the spreadsheet, you can't see the white lines unless you do a Ctrl-Home. 2. You will notice, just from the screen capture I sent in the Zip file, that the horizontal white lines correspond to the tops and bottoms of the buttons along the left side of the spreadsheet. 3. On occasion, the first time I do a CopyDown, Alt-], I see a quick flash of the buttons displayed, even though they are out of sight of the current view. This makes we wonder if the way the buttons are displayed has something to do with the white lines and the occasional flash of buttons. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
[Libreoffice-bugs] [Bug 149250] Crash in: ScColumn::SetPattern(long, ScPatternAttr const &)
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=149250 k_coll...@yahoo.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEEDINFO|UNCONFIRMED Ever confirmed|1 |0 --- Comment #4 from k_coll...@yahoo.com --- Thanks for the response. I downloaded version 7.3.3.2 (x64) and tested again. I works without problem now. Thank you for your help. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
[Libreoffice-bugs] [Bug 149265] LibreCalc displays white lines over a background image
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=149265 --- Comment #3 from Michael --- Version: 7.2.6.2 (x64) / LibreOffice Community Build ID: b0ec3a565991f7569a5a7f5d24fed7f52653d754 CPU threads: 2; OS: Windows 10.0 Build 19044; UI render: default; VCL: win Locale: en-CA (en_CA); UI: en-US Calc: threaded -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
[Libreoffice-ux-advise] [Bug 146762] Demote level of first list item with tab (and promote with shift+tab) and introduce ctrl+shift+tab to indent the whole list
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=146762 sdc.bla...@youmail.dk changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||141128 Referenced Bugs: https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=141128 [Bug 141128] Does Bullets and Numbering toolbar define "different paragraph levels" - as the online help claims? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Libreoffice-bugs] [Bug 135501] Change the default UI (see comment 67)
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=135501 --- Comment #116 from John Mills --- (In reply to Eyal Rozenberg from comment #115) > (In reply to Rafael Lima from comment #112) > > I agree with this point of view. Making the Tabbed UI should be a goal for > > to be achieved within 1 or 2 years. If we start prioritizing it today, maybe > > within 2 or 3 main releases we'll be able to make it the default. > > If you want to make this argument, you need to address the objections of > those of us who are against it. Which you, so far, have not. > > > Maybe we could bring this issue to the ESC so that future grants can be > > proposed to address Tabbed UI-related bugs and enhancements. What precisely is wrong taking this proposal to the ESC? Currently is your suggestion to delay because you have a better proposal for modernisation in the UI? Or rather you believe that the current status quo is adequate? > > Again, you're speaking as though this has somehow been agreed. On the > contrary - you should refrain from lobbying the ESC for grant money; that > would be a misrepresentation of the discussion here. This is an open discussion that has been open for near 2 years now, with both sides making their point. Unless there is any overstepping of statutes for TDF that has been made it is entirely within a member's rights to make a proposal or is this incorrect? > > (In reply to John Mills from comment #107) > John, I think in this latest reply you've provided the crux of your > perspective: > > > The standard lets say is MSO > > Excuse the capital letters, but: THE STANDARD IS NOT MSO, nor should it be. > "Do like MSO does" may be a reasonable fallback when we have no other > alternative. But we also know MSO gets some things wrong, UI-wise; and one > of these things is the switch to ribbons, which is more detrimental than > beneficial to users. For businesses and governments worldwide MSO is by far and way above any other office suite by usage statistics. No other office suite is remotely close to MSO. I would hazard a guess that pirated usage of MSO is significantly greater than LibreOffice unfortunately. Your argument about switching to a ribbon being detrimental is purely subjective. It certainly hasn't hampered their adoption if you compare usage in 2007 compared to 2022. If MSO was not a de facto standard then no suites would seek compatibility of UI paradigms or file formats. Clearly this is not the case. > > > This is the critical part, the Tabbed UI provides an attractive (certainly > > on Linux) and familiar interface to users coming from other office suites > > The menus + toolbars provide an attractive and familiar interface to such > users - as most desktop application software use menus and toolbars, and in > fact so do half or more of other office suites. I would concede that tabs > "look more attractive" - you get a larger canvas on which to represent your > ideas - but they make users fail to notice and find a lot of functionality. > And a shiny ribbon is not a good enough reason to make this interface the > default. Again a subjective opinion, please provide some rational evidence that users 'fail to notice and find a lot of functionality.' > > > such as MSO, OnlyOffice, Kingsoft, Softmaker to name a few. > > You're naming the ones with tabs, and ignoring the others. Which are the others you speak of that default to a 'classic' like interface? Word Perfect, possibly Google docs if you are broadly reaching? > > > if you were looking 50 to 10 years in to the future where do you > > think the desktop and online office space is going to be? Will there be > > consolidation? Will the desktop market shrink compared to online? Will MSO > > still be number one, will new competitors enter the market? The fact is we > > don't know for certain, > > We know that, 30 years ago, desktop applications were using menu bars and > toolbars, and 30 years later, they still use menu bars and toolbars, mostly. > Ribbons are relatively unpopular. Another direction has been "smartphonish" > interface - no menu bar and a hamburger menu. That's nice for a phone, but > sucks for the desktop. Chrome, Firefox and Thunderbird have gone in this > direction (along with using web-page-like dialog replacements - and it has > been a degradation. Well I hope we don't see significant hamburger menu like interfaces by default but they certainly supplement applications now, however I am not talking specifically about non-office applications. I do not see the relevance of the menu structure for photoshop or Auto CAD to the applicability of a Ribbon interface for LibreOffice. > > > but if trends continue then i think there will be an > > increased online presence and MSO will still be the most popular desktop > > client. > > if trends continue, then and most applications would still use menu bars and > toolbars, while Microsoft will try out some more UI which may or may not be > a good idea. I am not
[Libreoffice-ux-advise] [Bug 135501] Change the default UI (see comment 67)
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=135501 --- Comment #116 from John Mills --- (In reply to Eyal Rozenberg from comment #115) > (In reply to Rafael Lima from comment #112) > > I agree with this point of view. Making the Tabbed UI should be a goal for > > to be achieved within 1 or 2 years. If we start prioritizing it today, maybe > > within 2 or 3 main releases we'll be able to make it the default. > > If you want to make this argument, you need to address the objections of > those of us who are against it. Which you, so far, have not. > > > Maybe we could bring this issue to the ESC so that future grants can be > > proposed to address Tabbed UI-related bugs and enhancements. What precisely is wrong taking this proposal to the ESC? Currently is your suggestion to delay because you have a better proposal for modernisation in the UI? Or rather you believe that the current status quo is adequate? > > Again, you're speaking as though this has somehow been agreed. On the > contrary - you should refrain from lobbying the ESC for grant money; that > would be a misrepresentation of the discussion here. This is an open discussion that has been open for near 2 years now, with both sides making their point. Unless there is any overstepping of statutes for TDF that has been made it is entirely within a member's rights to make a proposal or is this incorrect? > > (In reply to John Mills from comment #107) > John, I think in this latest reply you've provided the crux of your > perspective: > > > The standard lets say is MSO > > Excuse the capital letters, but: THE STANDARD IS NOT MSO, nor should it be. > "Do like MSO does" may be a reasonable fallback when we have no other > alternative. But we also know MSO gets some things wrong, UI-wise; and one > of these things is the switch to ribbons, which is more detrimental than > beneficial to users. For businesses and governments worldwide MSO is by far and way above any other office suite by usage statistics. No other office suite is remotely close to MSO. I would hazard a guess that pirated usage of MSO is significantly greater than LibreOffice unfortunately. Your argument about switching to a ribbon being detrimental is purely subjective. It certainly hasn't hampered their adoption if you compare usage in 2007 compared to 2022. If MSO was not a de facto standard then no suites would seek compatibility of UI paradigms or file formats. Clearly this is not the case. > > > This is the critical part, the Tabbed UI provides an attractive (certainly > > on Linux) and familiar interface to users coming from other office suites > > The menus + toolbars provide an attractive and familiar interface to such > users - as most desktop application software use menus and toolbars, and in > fact so do half or more of other office suites. I would concede that tabs > "look more attractive" - you get a larger canvas on which to represent your > ideas - but they make users fail to notice and find a lot of functionality. > And a shiny ribbon is not a good enough reason to make this interface the > default. Again a subjective opinion, please provide some rational evidence that users 'fail to notice and find a lot of functionality.' > > > such as MSO, OnlyOffice, Kingsoft, Softmaker to name a few. > > You're naming the ones with tabs, and ignoring the others. Which are the others you speak of that default to a 'classic' like interface? Word Perfect, possibly Google docs if you are broadly reaching? > > > if you were looking 50 to 10 years in to the future where do you > > think the desktop and online office space is going to be? Will there be > > consolidation? Will the desktop market shrink compared to online? Will MSO > > still be number one, will new competitors enter the market? The fact is we > > don't know for certain, > > We know that, 30 years ago, desktop applications were using menu bars and > toolbars, and 30 years later, they still use menu bars and toolbars, mostly. > Ribbons are relatively unpopular. Another direction has been "smartphonish" > interface - no menu bar and a hamburger menu. That's nice for a phone, but > sucks for the desktop. Chrome, Firefox and Thunderbird have gone in this > direction (along with using web-page-like dialog replacements - and it has > been a degradation. Well I hope we don't see significant hamburger menu like interfaces by default but they certainly supplement applications now, however I am not talking specifically about non-office applications. I do not see the relevance of the menu structure for photoshop or Auto CAD to the applicability of a Ribbon interface for LibreOffice. > > > but if trends continue then i think there will be an > > increased online presence and MSO will still be the most popular desktop > > client. > > if trends continue, then and most applications would still use menu bars and > toolbars, while Microsoft will try out some more UI which may or may not be > a good idea. I am not
[Libreoffice-bugs] [Bug 149227] duplicate style in styles tab of sidebar
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=149227 m.a.riosv changed: What|Removed |Added CC||miguelangelrv@libreoffice.o ||rg --- Comment #3 from m.a.riosv --- Doesn't show that for me. Version: 7.3.3.2 (x64) / LibreOffice Community Build ID: d1d0ea68f081ee2800a922cac8f79445e4603348 CPU threads: 4; OS: Windows 10.0 Build 19044; UI render: Skia/Raster; VCL: win Locale: es-ES (es_ES); UI: en-US Calc: CL -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
[Libreoffice-bugs] [Bug 149272] New: LibreOffice will not open
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=149272 Bug ID: 149272 Summary: LibreOffice will not open Product: LibreOffice Version: 7.2.2.2 release Hardware: All OS: Windows (All) Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: medium Component: Installation Assignee: libreoffice-bugs@lists.freedesktop.org Reporter: timla...@bellsouth.net Description: I can't get LibreOffice to open after updating to 7.2 on 5/19/22 Steps to Reproduce: 1.Double click LibreOffice icon 2. 3. Actual Results: nothing, will not open Expected Results: open Reproducible: Always User Profile Reset: No Additional Info: no other info -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
[Libreoffice-bugs] [Bug 149265] LibreCalc displays white lines over a background image
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=149265 Regina Henschel changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 CC||rb.hensc...@t-online.de Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEEDINFO --- Comment #2 from Regina Henschel --- I do not have any white lines, neither with Skia enabled nor with Skia disabled. I have tested it with Version: 7.3.2.2 (x64) / LibreOffice Community Build ID: 49f2b1bff42cfccbd8f788c8dc32c1c309559be0 CPU threads: 8; OS: Windows 10.0 Build 19043; UI render: Skia/Raster; VCL: win Locale: de-DE (en_US); UI: en-US Calc: CL Please post the version info from Help > About. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
[Libreoffice-bugs] [Bug 147991] FILESAVE PPTX: text shows with different paragraph indentation
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=147991 Aron Budea changed: What|Removed |Added See Also||https://bugs.documentfounda ||tion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14 ||5162 Version|unspecified |7.2.5.2 release Keywords||bibisected, bisected, ||regression Regression By||Attila Bakos (NISZ) CC||bakos.attilakar...@nisz.hu Status|RESOLVED|NEW Resolution|NOTABUG |--- --- Comment #19 from Aron Budea --- (In reply to Timur from comment #17) > Right, not about font. But it's still NotABug. > Because LO doesn't write that in PPTX and MSO sets some arbitrary value. I'd rather someone actually analyzed what is going on with the file instead of pure guesswork. As principle, the reference of handling a PPTX is PowerPoint, if there is a disparity in Impress, there has to be a good reason for it, otherwise we can assume Impress is to blame. I've bibisected the point where the extra indent is shown in PowerPoint using repo bibisect-linux-64-7.2. It's the 7.2 backport of the following commit in 7.4. Adding CC: to Attila Bakos (NISZ). Note the steps: - open attachment 180283, - save as PPTX, - reload the PPTX, and save it, - reload the PPTX again, and save it, - open PPTX in PowerPoint. (if there is no second reload, the indent isn't there) https://cgit.freedesktop.org/libreoffice/core/commit/?id=f57cfddb51b7d7409b7b425dc200aa73406a13bd author Attila Bakos (NISZ) 2021-12-08 10:22:37 +0100 committer László Németh2021-12-09 12:14:51 +0100 tdf#145162 PPTX export: fix extra bullet regression -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
[Libreoffice-bugs] [Bug 107899] [META] PPTX paragraph-related issues
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=107899 Bug 107899 depends on bug 147991, which changed state. Bug 147991 Summary: FILESAVE PPTX: text shows with different paragraph indentation https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=147991 What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|NEW Resolution|NOTABUG |--- -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
[Libreoffice-bugs] [Bug 149270] Writer: Font of watermark is displayed incorrectly
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=149270 Regina Henschel changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Ever confirmed|0 |1 --- Comment #6 from Regina Henschel --- You need no Watermark but the problem is already visible in Fontwork-shapes. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
[Libreoffice-bugs] [Bug 149270] Writer: Font of watermark is displayed incorrectly
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=149270 Regina Henschel changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rb.hensc...@t-online.de --- Comment #5 from Regina Henschel --- Created attachment 180354 --> https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/attachment.cgi?id=180354=edit Bahnschrift semi bold in Fontwor shape -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
[Libreoffice-ux-advise] [Bug 149230] Create sketches for ajlittoz's vision of a UI promoting the use of styles
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=149230 --- Comment #12 from Eyal Rozenberg --- (In reply to Eyal Rozenberg from comment #11) > * Impress and Draw are under-developed IMHO w.r.t. styles, so there's less > to expose with the UI. Is there a meta-bug about this? Answering myself: Well, there's Bug 90497 about implementing "themes", which is at least part of what's missing. And of course, there's the Impress-and-Draw-Styles meta-bug, Bug 100373. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Libreoffice-bugs] [Bug 149230] Create sketches for ajlittoz's vision of a UI promoting the use of styles
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=149230 --- Comment #12 from Eyal Rozenberg --- (In reply to Eyal Rozenberg from comment #11) > * Impress and Draw are under-developed IMHO w.r.t. styles, so there's less > to expose with the UI. Is there a meta-bug about this? Answering myself: Well, there's Bug 90497 about implementing "themes", which is at least part of what's missing. And of course, there's the Impress-and-Draw-Styles meta-bug, Bug 100373. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
[Libreoffice-bugs] [Bug 107332] [META] Calc cell and page styles bugs and enhancements
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=107332 Eyal Rozenberg changed: What|Removed |Added Depends on||62925 Referenced Bugs: https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=62925 [Bug 62925] FORMATTING: enhancement: please add "chart styles" to the styles of Calc -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
[Libreoffice-bugs] [Bug 102946] [META] Styles bugs and enhancements
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=102946 Eyal Rozenberg changed: What|Removed |Added Depends on|62925 | Referenced Bugs: https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=62925 [Bug 62925] FORMATTING: enhancement: please add "chart styles" to the styles of Calc -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
[Libreoffice-bugs] [Bug 62925] FORMATTING: enhancement: please add "chart styles" to the styles of Calc
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=62925 Eyal Rozenberg changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|102946 |107332 Referenced Bugs: https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=102946 [Bug 102946] [META] Styles bugs and enhancements https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=107332 [Bug 107332] [META] Calc cell and page styles bugs and enhancements -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
[Libreoffice-bugs] [Bug 107326] [META] Writer style bugs and enhancements
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=107326 Eyal Rozenberg changed: What|Removed |Added Depends on||38194 Referenced Bugs: https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=38194 [Bug 38194] Style indicator in document margin -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
[Libreoffice-bugs] [Bug 102946] [META] Styles bugs and enhancements
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=102946 Eyal Rozenberg changed: What|Removed |Added Depends on|38194 | Referenced Bugs: https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=38194 [Bug 38194] Style indicator in document margin -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
[Libreoffice-bugs] [Bug 38194] Style indicator in document margin
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=38194 Eyal Rozenberg changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|102946 |107326 --- Comment #46 from Eyal Rozenberg --- This is just for Writer, right? Referenced Bugs: https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=102946 [Bug 102946] [META] Styles bugs and enhancements https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=107326 [Bug 107326] [META] Writer style bugs and enhancements -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
[Libreoffice-bugs] [Bug 108014] [META] Writer character style bugs and enhancements
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=108014 Eyal Rozenberg changed: What|Removed |Added Depends on|149271 | Referenced Bugs: https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=149271 [Bug 149271] Support composition of multiple styles of the same kind -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
[Libreoffice-bugs] [Bug 102946] [META] Styles bugs and enhancements
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=102946 Eyal Rozenberg changed: What|Removed |Added Depends on||149271 Referenced Bugs: https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=149271 [Bug 149271] Support composition of multiple styles of the same kind -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
[Libreoffice-bugs] [Bug 149271] Support composition of multiple styles of the same kind
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=149271 Eyal Rozenberg changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|108014 |102946 Referenced Bugs: https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=102946 [Bug 102946] [META] Styles bugs and enhancements https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=108014 [Bug 108014] [META] Writer character style bugs and enhancements -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
[Libreoffice-bugs] [Bug 108014] [META] Writer character style bugs and enhancements
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=108014 Eyal Rozenberg changed: What|Removed |Added Depends on||149271 Referenced Bugs: https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=149271 [Bug 149271] Support composition of multiple styles of the same kind -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
[Libreoffice-bugs] [Bug 149271] Support composition of multiple styles of the same kind
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=149271 Eyal Rozenberg changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||108014 Referenced Bugs: https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=108014 [Bug 108014] [META] Writer character style bugs and enhancements -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
[Libreoffice-bugs] [Bug 148755] A Quirk in the focusing property of the Navigator
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=148755 --- Comment #7 from Jim Raykowski --- > Jim, I can see an inconsistency: Button is called "Content Navigation View", > but in LO Help it is called "Content View" [1]. So if you try to search > "Content Navigation View" (with quotation marks) in LO Help you won't get a > result. So I would either change name of button or name in documentation. So > my questions to you are: > a) Do you agree, that we need more consistency here? > b) Which name do you prefer? Looks like the buttons tool tip was changed from "Content View" to "Content Navigation View" in version 5.2 by a commit made for bug 43514: https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=43514#c20 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
[Libreoffice-bugs] [Bug 94587] [META] ODF features missing or incorrectly imported
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=94587 Regina Henschel changed: What|Removed |Added Depends on||149271 Referenced Bugs: https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=149271 [Bug 149271] Support composition of multiple styles of the same kind -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
[Libreoffice-bugs] [Bug 149271] Support composition of multiple styles of the same kind
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=149271 Regina Henschel changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW CC||rb.hensc...@t-online.de Blocks||94587 --- Comment #1 from Regina Henschel --- What you are looking for is near to the ODF attribute text:class-names. https://docs.oasis-open.org/office/OpenDocument/v1.3/os/part3-schema/OpenDocument-v1.3-os-part3-schema.html#attribute-text_class-names That is not implemented in LO. Currently you can only make a hierarchical tree of styles using inheritance. So I take this as enhancement request to implement the attribute "text:class-names". Referenced Bugs: https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=94587 [Bug 94587] [META] ODF features missing or incorrectly imported -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
[Libreoffice-commits] core.git: Changes to 'refs/tags/cp-21.06.30-1'
Tag 'cp-21.06.30-1' created by Andras Timar at 2022-05-24 20:57 + cp-21.06.30-1 Changes since co-21.06.29-1-10: --- 0 files changed ---
[Libreoffice-bugs] [Bug 149230] Create sketches for ajlittoz's vision of a UI promoting the use of styles
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=149230 --- Comment #11 from Eyal Rozenberg --- (In reply to Heiko Tietze from comment #9) > Since the discussion is going towards Writer only Sadly, we do tend to do that... but TBH: * Calc work involves a lot less styling, typically, regardless of whether it's DF or cell/text styles. * Impress and Draw are under-developed IMHO w.r.t. styles, so there's less to expose with the UI. Is there a meta-bug about this? > However, I would challenge the idea of educating users (just for sake of the > argument). We can force users into learning a paradigm or - the actual > challenge for UX/IT - make the software smart. Simple solution is to change > DF = bold into CS = Emphasis (with the only attribute bold). Or change two > empty paragraphs into a heading plus spacing. Some changes are more difficult to accept in a deeper sense. For example, if you change the empty paragraph into a heading + space - the heading style you would choose would likely not be what the user expected, and they would be tempted to either DF the heading, or just undo the change. I'm not sure the user would realize "oh, I should specify the semantics of my document elements rather than their visual layout/styling". I wonder if users could be encouraged to watch a tutorial about preferring styles over DF. > But I believe this "convenience solution" would be the wrong way even when > requested by the users. Competitors do so - on cost at flexibility and > clearness. Everyone who tried to work with styles in MS Word knows that > LibreOffice is way superior in this regards. in most aspects of style handling. It's still easier to convert a bunch of identical DF into a style in MS Word. > My solution would be to not force users into a certain workflow but rather > give better feedback. But the argument is that our current UI nudges users towards DF and does not make the use of styles obvious/attractive enough. > We could show a "traffic light indicator" in the > statusbar with green in case of no DF and a low number of PS/CS, yellow for > a few DF or large number of PS/CS, and red. Before doing that, we should think about how to explain what such a traffic light means; which brings me to wondering about whether there could be some official tutorial, static or dynamic, for "DF is bad, Don't do DF, kay?" -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
[Libreoffice-ux-advise] [Bug 149230] Create sketches for ajlittoz's vision of a UI promoting the use of styles
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=149230 --- Comment #11 from Eyal Rozenberg --- (In reply to Heiko Tietze from comment #9) > Since the discussion is going towards Writer only Sadly, we do tend to do that... but TBH: * Calc work involves a lot less styling, typically, regardless of whether it's DF or cell/text styles. * Impress and Draw are under-developed IMHO w.r.t. styles, so there's less to expose with the UI. Is there a meta-bug about this? > However, I would challenge the idea of educating users (just for sake of the > argument). We can force users into learning a paradigm or - the actual > challenge for UX/IT - make the software smart. Simple solution is to change > DF = bold into CS = Emphasis (with the only attribute bold). Or change two > empty paragraphs into a heading plus spacing. Some changes are more difficult to accept in a deeper sense. For example, if you change the empty paragraph into a heading + space - the heading style you would choose would likely not be what the user expected, and they would be tempted to either DF the heading, or just undo the change. I'm not sure the user would realize "oh, I should specify the semantics of my document elements rather than their visual layout/styling". I wonder if users could be encouraged to watch a tutorial about preferring styles over DF. > But I believe this "convenience solution" would be the wrong way even when > requested by the users. Competitors do so - on cost at flexibility and > clearness. Everyone who tried to work with styles in MS Word knows that > LibreOffice is way superior in this regards. in most aspects of style handling. It's still easier to convert a bunch of identical DF into a style in MS Word. > My solution would be to not force users into a certain workflow but rather > give better feedback. But the argument is that our current UI nudges users towards DF and does not make the use of styles obvious/attractive enough. > We could show a "traffic light indicator" in the > statusbar with green in case of no DF and a low number of PS/CS, yellow for > a few DF or large number of PS/CS, and red. Before doing that, we should think about how to explain what such a traffic light means; which brings me to wondering about whether there could be some official tutorial, static or dynamic, for "DF is bad, Don't do DF, kay?" -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Libreoffice-commits] translations.git: Changes to 'refs/tags/cp-21.06.30-1'
Tag 'cp-21.06.30-1' created by Andras Timar at 2022-05-24 20:57 + cp-21.06.30-1 Changes since cp-21.06.13-1-1: --- 0 files changed ---
[Libreoffice-commits] help.git: Changes to 'refs/tags/cp-21.06.30-1'
Tag 'cp-21.06.30-1' created by Andras Timar at 2022-05-24 20:57 + cp-21.06.30-1 Changes since co-2021-branch-point-10: --- 0 files changed ---
[Libreoffice-commits] dictionaries.git: Changes to 'refs/tags/cp-21.06.30-1'
Tag 'cp-21.06.30-1' created by Andras Timar at 2022-05-24 20:57 + cp-21.06.30-1 Changes since libreoffice-7-1-branch-point-5: --- 0 files changed ---
[Libreoffice-commits] core.git: Branch 'distro/collabora/co-2021' - configure.ac
configure.ac |2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) New commits: commit 79bc17465c8f309db6f127d38264dc570f4a975a Author: Andras Timar AuthorDate: Tue May 24 22:57:37 2022 +0200 Commit: Andras Timar CommitDate: Tue May 24 22:57:37 2022 +0200 Bump version to 21.06.30.1 Change-Id: I5a7f5cd0dfcfabcc50a60d5895ffa7ae3bfaf1a3 diff --git a/configure.ac b/configure.ac index db08a4da9bb6..95585a8293c9 100644 --- a/configure.ac +++ b/configure.ac @@ -9,7 +9,7 @@ dnl in order to create a configure script. # several non-alphanumeric characters, those are split off and used only for the # ABOUTBOXPRODUCTVERSIONSUFFIX in openoffice.lst. Why that is necessary, no idea. -AC_INIT([Collabora Office],[21.06.29.1],[],[],[https://collaboraoffice.com/]) +AC_INIT([Collabora Office],[21.06.30.1],[],[],[https://collaboraoffice.com/]) dnl libnumbertext needs autoconf 2.68, but that can pick up autoconf268 just fine if it is installed dnl whereas aclocal (as run by autogen.sh) insists on using autoconf and fails hard
[Libreoffice-bugs] [Bug 149230] Create sketches for ajlittoz's vision of a UI promoting the use of styles
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=149230 Eyal Rozenberg changed: What|Removed |Added See Also||https://bugs.documentfounda ||tion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14 ||9271 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
[Libreoffice-bugs] [Bug 108498] Character styles not working against the underlying paragraph style
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=108498 Eyal Rozenberg changed: What|Removed |Added See Also||https://bugs.documentfounda ||tion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14 ||9271 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
[Libreoffice-bugs] [Bug 127702] Support setting quantitative font features relatively to underlying paragraph style
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=127702 Eyal Rozenberg changed: What|Removed |Added See Also||https://bugs.documentfounda ||tion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14 ||9271 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
[Libreoffice-ux-advise] [Bug 149230] Create sketches for ajlittoz's vision of a UI promoting the use of styles
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=149230 Eyal Rozenberg changed: What|Removed |Added See Also||https://bugs.documentfounda ||tion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14 ||9271 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Libreoffice-ux-advise] [Bug 115311] UI missing for nesting character styles
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=115311 Eyal Rozenberg changed: What|Removed |Added See Also||https://bugs.documentfounda ||tion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14 ||9271 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Libreoffice-bugs] [Bug 149271] Support composition of multiple styles of the same kind
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=149271 Eyal Rozenberg changed: What|Removed |Added See Also||https://bugs.documentfounda ||tion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11 ||5311, ||https://bugs.documentfounda ||tion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14 ||9230, ||https://bugs.documentfounda ||tion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12 ||7702, ||https://bugs.documentfounda ||tion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10 ||8498 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
[Libreoffice-bugs] [Bug 115311] UI missing for nesting character styles
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=115311 Eyal Rozenberg changed: What|Removed |Added See Also||https://bugs.documentfounda ||tion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14 ||9271 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
[Libreoffice-bugs] [Bug 149271] New: Support composition of multiple styles of the same kind
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=149271 Bug ID: 149271 Summary: Support composition of multiple styles of the same kind Product: LibreOffice Version: 7.4.0.0 alpha0+ Master Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: enhancement Priority: medium Component: LibreOffice Assignee: libreoffice-bugs@lists.freedesktop.org Reporter: eyalr...@gmx.com If we think of styling/formatting in HTML documents, we'll notice that, like in LO, you have direct formatting - setting the style="..." attribute of a single element; and we also LO-like "styles" in the form of CSS classes. One interesting difference between CSS classes and LO styles is, that a single element can have _multiple_ styles applied to it at once. LO should also support this. In writer, an obvious example would be "Internet Link" and "Emphasis". Why can't I have a segment of text (within some paragraph) which is emphasized, and also contains an "Internet Link"? But this is also relevant for paragraph styles. Say, "Footer" and "Blockquote". I can put a blockquote in a footer if I want to, right? Same goes for page styles: There's an "RTL page" style; and you could have a page style with decorated margins. Surely it makes sense to combine them. Proper support for combinations of styles is important for encouraging the use of styles over direct formatting - as the unattainable combinations tend to make people use DF rather than generate the 2^n combinations they may be interested in. Related bugs: * Bug 115311 - UI missing for nesting character styles. Nesting is similar to just combining styles, but perhaps not exactly the same thing; also, I'm generalizing to other styles as well * Bug 149230 - Create sketches for ajlittoz's vision of a UI promoting the use of styles * Bug 127702 - Support setting quantitative font features relatively to underlying paragraph style. There would need to be an ever more expansive support for making style specs relative and partial. * Bug 108498 - Character styles not working against the underlying paragraph style. See discussion there regarding whether (character) styles need to be relative/differential and to what. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
[Libreoffice-bugs] [Bug 135501] Change the default UI (see comment 67)
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=135501 --- Comment #115 from Eyal Rozenberg --- (In reply to Rafael Lima from comment #112) > I agree with this point of view. Making the Tabbed UI should be a goal for > to be achieved within 1 or 2 years. If we start prioritizing it today, maybe > within 2 or 3 main releases we'll be able to make it the default. If you want to make this argument, you need to address the objections of those of us who are against it. Which you, so far, have not. > Maybe we could bring this issue to the ESC so that future grants can be > proposed to address Tabbed UI-related bugs and enhancements. Again, you're speaking as though this has somehow been agreed. On the contrary - you should refrain from lobbying the ESC for grant money; that would be a misrepresentation of the discussion here. (In reply to John Mills from comment #107) John, I think in this latest reply you've provided the crux of your perspective: > The standard lets say is MSO Excuse the capital letters, but: THE STANDARD IS NOT MSO, nor should it be. "Do like MSO does" may be a reasonable fallback when we have no other alternative. But we also know MSO gets some things wrong, UI-wise; and one of these things is the switch to ribbons, which is more detrimental than beneficial to users. > This is the critical part, the Tabbed UI provides an attractive (certainly > on Linux) and familiar interface to users coming from other office suites The menus + toolbars provide an attractive and familiar interface to such users - as most desktop application software use menus and toolbars, and in fact so do half or more of other office suites. I would concede that tabs "look more attractive" - you get a larger canvas on which to represent your ideas - but they make users fail to notice and find a lot of functionality. And a shiny ribbon is not a good enough reason to make this interface the default. > such as MSO, OnlyOffice, Kingsoft, Softmaker to name a few. You're naming the ones with tabs, and ignoring the others. > if you were looking 50 to 10 years in to the future where do you > think the desktop and online office space is going to be? Will there be > consolidation? Will the desktop market shrink compared to online? Will MSO > still be number one, will new competitors enter the market? The fact is we > don't know for certain, We know that, 30 years ago, desktop applications were using menu bars and toolbars, and 30 years later, they still use menu bars and toolbars, mostly. Ribbons are relatively unpopular. Another direction has been "smartphonish" interface - no menu bar and a hamburger menu. That's nice for a phone, but sucks for the desktop. Chrome, Firefox and Thunderbird have gone in this direction (along with using web-page-like dialog replacements - and it has been a degradation. > but if trends continue then i think there will be an > increased online presence and MSO will still be the most popular desktop > client. if trends continue, then and most applications would still use menu bars and toolbars, while Microsoft will try out some more UI which may or may not be a good idea. > If they don't radically change their UI then the 'ribbon' will be 20 > + years old at that point and the type of UI used by LO 30 years old. Even older. But also note that if trends continue, there will still be few ribbon apps and most free office suites will have menu bars and toolbars, not ribbons. > Just going by those numbers the current default UI paradigm used by LO will > be hopelessly out of date On the contrary. Going by those numbers LO will continue to be in vogue as it is today. Of course, things may turn out differently: It may be the case that in a decade or two, most apps are dumbed-down to smartphone-style interfaces. If that happens, we should still not go down the same path. > [u]nless there is > emphasis and resources made available to correct these then nothing will > happen and that stagnation is not healthy for the LO application and > community in the longer term. I hope you're not insinuating that not adopting your UI design preference implies stagnation... > There needs to be some strategic vision for where the UI needs to be There is such a strategic vision: menu bar and toolbars. True, it's the by-default vision, but to change it, proponents need to make a better argument than "people who use MSO are used to it". Which is what I've also told Rafael, above. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
[Libreoffice-ux-advise] [Bug 135501] Change the default UI (see comment 67)
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=135501 --- Comment #115 from Eyal Rozenberg --- (In reply to Rafael Lima from comment #112) > I agree with this point of view. Making the Tabbed UI should be a goal for > to be achieved within 1 or 2 years. If we start prioritizing it today, maybe > within 2 or 3 main releases we'll be able to make it the default. If you want to make this argument, you need to address the objections of those of us who are against it. Which you, so far, have not. > Maybe we could bring this issue to the ESC so that future grants can be > proposed to address Tabbed UI-related bugs and enhancements. Again, you're speaking as though this has somehow been agreed. On the contrary - you should refrain from lobbying the ESC for grant money; that would be a misrepresentation of the discussion here. (In reply to John Mills from comment #107) John, I think in this latest reply you've provided the crux of your perspective: > The standard lets say is MSO Excuse the capital letters, but: THE STANDARD IS NOT MSO, nor should it be. "Do like MSO does" may be a reasonable fallback when we have no other alternative. But we also know MSO gets some things wrong, UI-wise; and one of these things is the switch to ribbons, which is more detrimental than beneficial to users. > This is the critical part, the Tabbed UI provides an attractive (certainly > on Linux) and familiar interface to users coming from other office suites The menus + toolbars provide an attractive and familiar interface to such users - as most desktop application software use menus and toolbars, and in fact so do half or more of other office suites. I would concede that tabs "look more attractive" - you get a larger canvas on which to represent your ideas - but they make users fail to notice and find a lot of functionality. And a shiny ribbon is not a good enough reason to make this interface the default. > such as MSO, OnlyOffice, Kingsoft, Softmaker to name a few. You're naming the ones with tabs, and ignoring the others. > if you were looking 50 to 10 years in to the future where do you > think the desktop and online office space is going to be? Will there be > consolidation? Will the desktop market shrink compared to online? Will MSO > still be number one, will new competitors enter the market? The fact is we > don't know for certain, We know that, 30 years ago, desktop applications were using menu bars and toolbars, and 30 years later, they still use menu bars and toolbars, mostly. Ribbons are relatively unpopular. Another direction has been "smartphonish" interface - no menu bar and a hamburger menu. That's nice for a phone, but sucks for the desktop. Chrome, Firefox and Thunderbird have gone in this direction (along with using web-page-like dialog replacements - and it has been a degradation. > but if trends continue then i think there will be an > increased online presence and MSO will still be the most popular desktop > client. if trends continue, then and most applications would still use menu bars and toolbars, while Microsoft will try out some more UI which may or may not be a good idea. > If they don't radically change their UI then the 'ribbon' will be 20 > + years old at that point and the type of UI used by LO 30 years old. Even older. But also note that if trends continue, there will still be few ribbon apps and most free office suites will have menu bars and toolbars, not ribbons. > Just going by those numbers the current default UI paradigm used by LO will > be hopelessly out of date On the contrary. Going by those numbers LO will continue to be in vogue as it is today. Of course, things may turn out differently: It may be the case that in a decade or two, most apps are dumbed-down to smartphone-style interfaces. If that happens, we should still not go down the same path. > [u]nless there is > emphasis and resources made available to correct these then nothing will > happen and that stagnation is not healthy for the LO application and > community in the longer term. I hope you're not insinuating that not adopting your UI design preference implies stagnation... > There needs to be some strategic vision for where the UI needs to be There is such a strategic vision: menu bar and toolbars. True, it's the by-default vision, but to change it, proponents need to make a better argument than "people who use MSO are used to it". Which is what I've also told Rafael, above. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Libreoffice-commits] core.git: tools/source
tools/source/fsys/urlobj.cxx |4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
New commits:
commit 4bd8b4e469a4084eee0ec467721704ae51f82301
Author: Noel Grandin
AuthorDate: Tue May 24 14:08:03 2022 +0200
Commit: Noel Grandin
CommitDate: Tue May 24 21:21:17 2022 +0200
no need to call makeStringAndClear here
we are passing it to a u16string_view arg
Change-Id: Ieef467fde2acccedf41381e97e93034fffceca22
Reviewed-on: https://gerrit.libreoffice.org/c/core/+/134873
Tested-by: Jenkins
Reviewed-by: Noel Grandin
diff --git a/tools/source/fsys/urlobj.cxx b/tools/source/fsys/urlobj.cxx
index ad96d1eecf10..00e3207b2d3b 100644
--- a/tools/source/fsys/urlobj.cxx
+++ b/tools/source/fsys/urlobj.cxx
@@ -3360,7 +3360,7 @@ bool INetURLObject::insertName(std::u16string_view
rTheName,
}
aNewPath.append(pSuffixBegin, pPathEnd - pSuffixBegin);
-return setPath(aNewPath.makeStringAndClear(),
EncodeMechanism::NotCanonical,
+return setPath(aNewPath, EncodeMechanism::NotCanonical,
RTL_TEXTENCODING_UTF8);
}
@@ -4053,7 +4053,7 @@ bool INetURLObject::removeSegment(sal_Int32 nIndex, bool
bIgnoreFinalSlash)
aNewPath.append('/');
}
-return setPath(aNewPath.makeStringAndClear(),
EncodeMechanism::NotCanonical,
+return setPath(aNewPath, EncodeMechanism::NotCanonical,
RTL_TEXTENCODING_UTF8);
}
[Libreoffice-commits] core.git: sw/inc sw/source
sw/inc/docufld.hxx|1 +
sw/source/core/fields/docufld.cxx |5 +
sw/source/core/txtnode/thints.cxx |4 +++-
3 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
New commits:
commit a4536c53eceac8eec6e5ac273583fefb6bafcb3f
Author: Pranam Lashkari
AuthorDate: Fri May 20 20:24:46 2022 +0530
Commit: Pranam Lashkari
CommitDate: Tue May 24 21:20:35 2022 +0200
comments: reassign ID when copy comment
reassigning new ID will make all the comments have unique IDs
this will also ensure there is no mixup when working with comments ID
Signed-off-by: Pranam Lashkari
Change-Id: I94b433130c68354ab94d4d6e9b86751038b31af5
Reviewed-on: https://gerrit.libreoffice.org/c/core/+/134686
Reviewed-by: Szymon Kłos
Reviewed-by: Gökay ŞATIR
Tested-by: Jenkins CollaboraOffice
(cherry picked from commit 0d3bba5c383ef8b9f62c121a26fed4445c813949)
Reviewed-on: https://gerrit.libreoffice.org/c/core/+/134792
Tested-by: Jenkins
diff --git a/sw/inc/docufld.hxx b/sw/inc/docufld.hxx
index 1cb5d23e0e71..511b9c00890e 100644
--- a/sw/inc/docufld.hxx
+++ b/sw/inc/docufld.hxx
@@ -481,6 +481,7 @@ public:
Date GetDate() const { return
Date(m_aDateTime.GetDate()); }
tools::Time GetTime() const { return
tools::Time(m_aDateTime.GetTime()); }
sal_uInt32 GetPostItId() const { return m_nPostItId; }
+void SetPostItId(const sal_uInt32 nPostItId = 0);
/// Author
virtual OUStringGetPar1() const override;
diff --git a/sw/source/core/fields/docufld.cxx
b/sw/source/core/fields/docufld.cxx
index 208ee379e245..204b2611edbf 100644
--- a/sw/source/core/fields/docufld.cxx
+++ b/sw/source/core/fields/docufld.cxx
@@ -1830,6 +1830,11 @@ sal_Int32 SwPostItField::GetNumberOfParagraphs() const
return mpText ? mpText->Count() : 1;
}
+void SwPostItField::SetPostItId(const sal_uInt32 nPostItId)
+{
+m_nPostItId = nPostItId == 0 ? s_nLastPostItId++ : nPostItId;
+}
+
bool SwPostItField::QueryValue( uno::Any& rAny, sal_uInt16 nWhichId ) const
{
switch( nWhichId )
diff --git a/sw/source/core/txtnode/thints.cxx
b/sw/source/core/txtnode/thints.cxx
index f71db22d3fb7..0c774f83677f 100644
--- a/sw/source/core/txtnode/thints.cxx
+++ b/sw/source/core/txtnode/thints.cxx
@@ -1091,7 +1091,9 @@ SwTextAttr* MakeTextAttr(
// the relation to its annotation mark (relation established
via annotation field's name).
// If the annotation mark is also copied, the relation and
thus the annotated text range will be reestablished,
// when the annotation mark is created and inserted into the
document.
-const_cast(dynamic_cast(*(pNew->GetFormatField().GetField(.SetName(OUString());
+auto& pField = const_cast(dynamic_cast(*(pNew->GetFormatField().GetField(;
+pField.SetName(OUString());
+pField.SetPostItId();
}
}
break;
[Libreoffice-commits] core.git: include/comphelper
include/comphelper/interfacecontainer4.hxx | 16
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
New commits:
commit c022b7a169eebf15f38db0286660ac84cc537358
Author: Noel Grandin
AuthorDate: Tue May 24 14:06:51 2022 +0200
Commit: Stephan Bergmann
CommitDate: Tue May 24 21:17:58 2022 +0200
fix thread-safety in OInterfaceContainerHelper4
we need thread-safety here (even though we use a mutex), because we use
a singleton, and the singleton can be ref-counted when the
OInterfaceContainerHelper4 is deleted, and is generallly not held at
that point, and that is tricky to enforce.
Change-Id: I1d61495786d5f0e18deae724b2eb6c6645feb51a
Reviewed-on: https://gerrit.libreoffice.org/c/core/+/134872
Tested-by: Jenkins
Reviewed-by: Stephan Bergmann
diff --git a/include/comphelper/interfacecontainer4.hxx
b/include/comphelper/interfacecontainer4.hxx
index fe19bab4e43e..694e5b17bbca 100644
--- a/include/comphelper/interfacecontainer4.hxx
+++ b/include/comphelper/interfacecontainer4.hxx
@@ -86,7 +86,9 @@ public:
private:
OInterfaceContainerHelper4& rCont;
-o3tl::cow_wrapper>> maData;
+o3tl::cow_wrapper>,
+ o3tl::ThreadSafeRefCountingPolicy>
+maData;
sal_Int32 nRemain;
OInterfaceIteratorHelper4(const OInterfaceIteratorHelper4&) = delete;
@@ -228,13 +230,19 @@ public:
private:
friend class OInterfaceIteratorHelper4;
-o3tl::cow_wrapper>> maData;
+o3tl::cow_wrapper>,
+ o3tl::ThreadSafeRefCountingPolicy>
+maData;
OInterfaceContainerHelper4(const OInterfaceContainerHelper4&) = delete;
OInterfaceContainerHelper4& operator=(const OInterfaceContainerHelper4&) =
delete;
-static o3tl::cow_wrapper>>&
DEFAULT()
+static o3tl::cow_wrapper>,
+ o3tl::ThreadSafeRefCountingPolicy>&
+DEFAULT()
{
-static o3tl::cow_wrapper>>
SINGLETON;
+static o3tl::cow_wrapper>,
+ o3tl::ThreadSafeRefCountingPolicy>
+SINGLETON;
return SINGLETON;
}
[Libreoffice-bugs] [Bug 149267] grid lines for .xlsx file
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=149267 --- Comment #1 from Rafael Lima --- I cannot reproduce this issue using LO 7.3.3. Created a new Calc file, added some borders and then hid the grid lines. Then I saved as XLSX, closed and reopened it. The grid lines were still hidden. Please try using the latest version of LibreOffice and check if the bug persists. System info: Version: 7.3.3.2 / LibreOffice Community Build ID: 30(Build:2) CPU threads: 12; OS: Linux 5.13; UI render: default; VCL: kf5 (cairo+xcb) Locale: pt-BR (pt_BR.UTF-8); UI: en-US Ubuntu package version: 1:7.3.3~rc2-0ubuntu0.21.10.1~lo1 Calc: threaded -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
[Libreoffice-bugs] [Bug 149044] autonumbering and the action which caused it are combined into a single undo step
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=149044 --- Comment #3 from Dieter --- (In reply to lvm from comment #2) > I believe I already explained why it is a bug - it is inconsistent with undo > behaviour for other types of autoformatting in LO e.g. URL recognition. I don't understand. If I type www.example.com and press enter, a new paragraph is inserted and text is recognized as link. Undo deletes paragraph and URL recognition. Perhaps another user understands your argument in a better way. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
[Libreoffice-commits] core.git: sc/source
sc/source/ui/app/inputwin.cxx |3 ++-
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
New commits:
commit d07acfc4b2cc92d094d8eac204868e26c9e25e27
Author: Caolán McNamara
AuthorDate: Tue May 24 16:30:00 2022 +0100
Commit: Caolán McNamara
CommitDate: Tue May 24 21:03:14 2022 +0200
tdf#145248 don't start a drag if actively selecting
Change-Id: I00565adbb32a6d9109a75548a544e79ba1951650
Reviewed-on: https://gerrit.libreoffice.org/c/core/+/134881
Tested-by: Jenkins
Reviewed-by: Caolán McNamara
diff --git a/sc/source/ui/app/inputwin.cxx b/sc/source/ui/app/inputwin.cxx
index 2cdf9977671f..817a68dc044f 100644
--- a/sc/source/ui/app/inputwin.cxx
+++ b/sc/source/ui/app/inputwin.cxx
@@ -1790,7 +1790,8 @@ bool ScTextWnd::Command( const CommandEvent& rCEvt )
bool ScTextWnd::StartDrag()
{
-if (m_xEditView)
+// tdf#145248 don't start a drag if actively selecting
+if (m_xEditView && !m_xEditEngine->IsInSelectionMode())
{
OUString sSelection = m_xEditView->GetSelected();
m_xHelper->SetData(sSelection);
[Libreoffice-bugs] [Bug 145239] Customize footnote symbols
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=145239 --- Comment #6 from Eyal Rozenberg --- My opinion: Yes, some footnote reference mechanisms have auto-progression/numbering. But - some do not; and that may be sufficient for justifying this feature - even as a more general implementation of what we have now, which simply gets exposed for user addition. The implemented feature, at this point, could be customizing only fixed finite lists with no auto-progression. However - I would only be in favor of this if there are multiple obvious examples. OP's example is one. Are there more? I'm not sure I buy ①②③. That is, without auto-numbering, it's not as useful, and even with it - I kind of doubt anybody would actually use this. If there's only one or two obvious examples, we could for now just expand the non-customizable selection. (In reply to V Stuart Foote from comment #5) > Instead, we really should be looking to implement support for CSL (Citation > Style List) But isn't that only for references/citations? Footnotes are distinct from that. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
[Libreoffice-ux-advise] [Bug 145239] Customize footnote symbols
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=145239 --- Comment #6 from Eyal Rozenberg --- My opinion: Yes, some footnote reference mechanisms have auto-progression/numbering. But - some do not; and that may be sufficient for justifying this feature - even as a more general implementation of what we have now, which simply gets exposed for user addition. The implemented feature, at this point, could be customizing only fixed finite lists with no auto-progression. However - I would only be in favor of this if there are multiple obvious examples. OP's example is one. Are there more? I'm not sure I buy ①②③. That is, without auto-numbering, it's not as useful, and even with it - I kind of doubt anybody would actually use this. If there's only one or two obvious examples, we could for now just expand the non-customizable selection. (In reply to V Stuart Foote from comment #5) > Instead, we really should be looking to implement support for CSL (Citation > Style List) But isn't that only for references/citations? Footnotes are distinct from that. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Libreoffice-bugs] [Bug 149270] Writer: Font of watermark is displayed incorrectly
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=149270 --- Comment #4 from BDF --- Created attachment 180353 --> https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/attachment.cgi?id=180353=edit Observed example of bug 149270 In case the odt file as well as the pdf file look fine on your PC, this is how it looks like on my machine. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
[Libreoffice-bugs] [Bug 149270] Writer: Font of watermark is displayed incorrectly
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=149270 --- Comment #3 from BDF --- Created attachment 180352 --> https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/attachment.cgi?id=180352=edit Writer pdf file - bug 149270 The odt file exported as pdf in case the bug can not be observed on a different machine. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
[Libreoffice-bugs] [Bug 149044] autonumbering and the action which caused it are combined into a single undo step
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=149044 lvm changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED CC||lmiro...@yandex.ru Resolution|NOTABUG |--- --- Comment #2 from lvm --- I believe I already explained why it is a bug - it is inconsistent with undo behaviour for other types of autoformatting in LO e.g. URL recognition. This and only this is the correct undo behaviour because it allows one to undo autoformatting if it was not needed without undoing the action which caused it. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
[Libreoffice-bugs] [Bug 149270] Writer: Font of watermark is displayed incorrectly
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=149270 --- Comment #2 from BDF --- Created attachment 180351 --> https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/attachment.cgi?id=180351=edit Writer text file - bug 149270 ODT file with multiple examples: Page 1: - Watermark only. Characters B, E, H and R as example in the Bahnschrift font. Everything else was left to default Page 2: - Same as 1 plus "BEHR" in Bahnschrift font in colour black. Page 3: - Same as 1 plus "BEHR" in Bahnschrift font in colour black with 70% transparency. The watermark font below shows the bug, the 'text' font does not. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
[Libreoffice-bugs] [Bug 149270] Writer: Font of watermark is displayed incorrectly
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=149270 --- Comment #1 from BDF --- Created attachment 180350 --> https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/attachment.cgi?id=180350=edit bahnschrift.ttf The regular Windows Bahnschrift font. Since a quick google search shows that you can download this font for free from multiple sites I think it's OK to share it for bug report purposes. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
[Libreoffice-bugs] [Bug 149270] New: Writer: Font of watermark is displayed incorrectly
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=149270 Bug ID: 149270 Summary: Writer: Font of watermark is displayed incorrectly Product: LibreOffice Version: 7.3.3.2 release Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: medium Component: Writer Assignee: libreoffice-bugs@lists.freedesktop.org Reporter: bugs_documentfoundation_org.5.k...@xoxy.net Description: When a certain font is used for watermarks, the text is displayed incorrectly Steps to Reproduce: 1. Add Watermark using the wrong font (thats all) Actual Results: Watermark text is displayed incorrectly Expected Results: Watermark text is displayed correctly Reproducible: Always User Profile Reset: No Additional Info: You can NOT use any font to get this effect. The font has to be created with 'bad outlines'. An example for this is the "Bahnschrift" font. - If you know a bit about SVGs: The outer line is not created by a single multigon, but by overlaping parts. The parts where one part of the letter intersects the other part seems to cause this bug. - If you don't know SVGs: SVGs can be made up of one single shape or multiple shapes combined. You can add two intersection squares and save them as such. You ca also combine them into one shape and have the outline of both. The first case seems to be the problem here (two shapes intersecting). The parts that intersect each other are the parts that look incorrect. I once knew how to extract the single glyph as SVG, but I aready forgot, Can't be that difficult though. If you upload the Bahnschrift font on https://opentype.js.org/ you can see the problem as well. The outlines are created with the blue dots. The red dots seem to be bezier curves (no idea though). The blue dots within the black shape are the ones that cause the problem. They indicate that a shape overlaps the other shape. The middle bar of the "E" for example is a single shape. The top bar, the bottom bar as well as the left bar are also single shapes. Why I think it's the problem of LibreOffice and not of the Bahnschrift font simply is that the same font works in regular text in black font colour, grey font colour and black font colour with a transparency of 70%. So you would think that the same font looks the same way in the watermark. -- Version: 7.3.3.2 (x64) / LibreOffice Community Build ID: d1d0ea68f081ee2800a922cac8f79445e4603348 CPU threads: 16; OS: Windows 10.0 Build 19044; UI render: Skia/Vulkan; VCL: win Locale: en-GB (de_AT); UI: de-DE Calc: CL (So far I only tested this on Windows because I yet have to find out how to install fonts on my Linux machine.) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
[Libreoffice-bugs] [Bug 103182] [META] GTK3-specific bugs
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=103182 Bug 103182 depends on bug 148168, which changed state. Bug 148168 Summary: LibreOffice Document Recovery dialog shows weird text input field https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=148168 What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|--- |FIXED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
[Libreoffice-commits] core.git: svx/uiconfig
svx/uiconfig/ui/docrecoveryrecoverdialog.ui |1 + 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) New commits: commit b0ba3ed1992b24c8808604553278fe75b093c0a9 Author: Caolán McNamara AuthorDate: Tue May 24 14:55:15 2022 +0100 Commit: Caolán McNamara CommitDate: Tue May 24 20:40:17 2022 +0200 Resolves: tdf#148168 disable gtk treeview seach box Change-Id: I63691d86084832e89d248527c214bcdcc98dc3fb Reviewed-on: https://gerrit.libreoffice.org/c/core/+/134878 Tested-by: Jenkins Reviewed-by: Caolán McNamara diff --git a/svx/uiconfig/ui/docrecoveryrecoverdialog.ui b/svx/uiconfig/ui/docrecoveryrecoverdialog.ui index 982b19bf8bce..11bcc05a1cdd 100644 --- a/svx/uiconfig/ui/docrecoveryrecoverdialog.ui +++ b/svx/uiconfig/ui/docrecoveryrecoverdialog.ui @@ -139,6 +139,7 @@ liststore1 False True +False 1 False
