Apache OpenOffice (AOO) Bugzilla – Issue 5550
auto-fill can't increment last octet of ip addresses.
Last modified: 2013-08-07 15:14:30 UTC
When specifying auto fill, I would like to be able to auto-fill the series 10.0.0.1 to 10.0.0.255. When I try this just dragging the cell corner, the 10 starts incrementing. When I try the dialog box, I get the error "invalid value"
Hi Falko, I like this idea very much because I filed something similar myself a while ago. And we need a number format for IP support. Best regards, Peter
For the moment we increase automatically the number of a cell when using AutoFill (drag with mouse). In combination with STRG we do not alter the cell contents. This could change: - Increase automatically the first number when using the mouse _plus_ STRG - Increase the last(!) number of a comma or dot separated number string by just using the mouse.
started
*** Issue 6028 has been marked as a duplicate of this issue. ***
*** Issue 22435 has been marked as a duplicate of this issue. ***
Hello Niklas, please give approval for this evaluated OO.o 2.0 flagged issue. If you confirm with the target OO.o 2.0, then please keep it on your owner (or the owner of the concerning developer) for implementation. In case you want this issue for 'OOo Later', then please reset the target milestone. If you decline the issue finally, please set the resolution to 'Wontfix' (but do not close). In case of 'OOo Later' or 'Wontfix' please reset it on Bettina's owner. Thank you.
according to the announcement on releases (http://www.openoffice.org/servlets/ReadMsg?list=releases&msgNo=7503) this issue will be re-targeted to OOo Later.
That feature would indeed very good to get working properly. I find that when to try and drag the cells to perform the autocomplete, the app crashes. I sent in the report generated from the crash earlier this morning. R
*** Issue 88511 has been marked as a duplicate of this issue. ***
Just so that we have it on the record...., The code to look into is sc/source/core/data/table4.cxx, ScTable::Fill(), FillSeries(), FillAnalyse(), and particularly lcl_DecompValueString() which is the function used to determine what part of a text should be incremented. Thanks er for providing the hint on IRC.
Created attachment 55925 [details] here is my take.
Ok, I've modified it quite a bit. It does what Excel does (unless I overlooked something), and something extra that only Calc does, such as the handling of negative numbers, leading zeros etc. My test looks pretty good, but more tests are welcome.
*** Issue 92292 has been marked as a duplicate of this issue. ***
discoleo->kohei I would appreciate a short description of the feature the patch brings in. ;) How are the following situation handled: '12.34 '12.34 '12.34 '12.34.45 '12abc34 '12.35 '13.34 '13.44 '12.34.46 '12abc44 Maybe others.
Hi, while working on AutoFill, may I draw your attention also to issue #70015, issue #74662 and issue #74733.
Created attachment 58065 [details] revised patch to fix one regression
See https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=439441 for the regression I just fixed.
target 3.2
The second patch breaks the simple case of "1 foo". Anyway, I just changed the old code to prefer a number at the end over one at the beginning, unless the one at the beginning is followed by a space. This means: 1 foo 1 -> 2 foo 1 (unchanged, because of the space) 1foo1 -> 1foo2 (by the same logic as the IP example) The second case is different from older versions, but I hope nobody's relying on the old behavior of that. The change is in CWS "calc49".
Created attachment 60410 [details] revised patch to fix "1 foo" while preserving "1foo1" behavior
Hmm, I'd rather not revert to the old code especially when fixing that "1 foo" case was rather easy. The latest patch also preserves the "1foo1" case.
Why "rather not revert to the old code"? It works, and making a bigger modification is certainly no goal on its own.
It's just one local function ~20 lines of code. What's the big deal here? If you want to control every single line of my contributed patches, then I take offense with that. That's too much micro-management, and is not something a good project lead should be doing. I care as much about the code quality of Calc as perhaps you do, but that's probably how you see my contributions. Anyway, do whatever you please. You got the power. I don't.
reassigning to QA for verification
Created attachment 62159 [details] TestCaseSpecification
Created attachment 62160 [details] Testdocument for Test Case Specification
verified in internal build cws_calc49
Verified in DEV300m49 on WinXP. Closing
*** Issue 108540 has been marked as a duplicate of this issue. ***