[REVIEW 3-5] some shape position skew

Noel Power nopower at suse.com
Fri Jun 8 03:56:36 PDT 2012


although 31012ab9d7035f942486c87ecc1a79b4d6579975 ( and associated fix 
8a838b9fbf46ece9680824cd3a044ab7338bf306 ) make the document mentioned 
in https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=116848 behave better 
with zoom, it makes other documents much worse ( even at 100% zoom ) 
e.g. the document attached to  fdo#49430. When you modify the zoom then 
the situation gets much much worse. So what I see is

a) with commits 31012ab9d7035f942486c87ecc1a79b4d6579975 ( and 
associated fix 8a838b9fbf46ece9680824cd3a044ab7338bf306 ) we have one 
test document ( associated with the orig bug ) that experiences no skew 
of the relative position of the shape to the position of the cell the 
shape is anchored to ( regardless of the zoom ). However we have other 
documents ( typically where the shapes are located further down the 
document ) where there is significant skew between the shape position 
and associated cell it is anchored to. Note: in these cases changing the 
zoom results in wild relative position changes ( e.g. a number of rows 
offset )

b) with the commits above reverted the test document associated with 
i#116848 is indeed not behaving itself at zoom levels other than 100% ( 
so that bug will still exist ) but... with the other scenario ( with 
shapes located much further down the document e.g. with the document 
attached to fdo#49430 ) behave much better, indeed the shapes ( at 100% 
zoom ) are at the correct position. In both cases changing the zoom 
seems only to affect the relative position error in a small way ( e.g. 
less than a row height )

Eike we discussed this previously on IRC and I already reverted these 
patches on master, I think we should revert these on 3.5 also, to me the 
behaviour without these commits is better than with them ( but thats 
just my opinion hence the review request ) It would be great to fix the 
underlying error, unfortunately I didn't have any luck with that. So... 
please consider reverting 31012ab9d7035f942486c87ecc1a79b4d6579975 ( and 
associated fix 8a838b9fbf46ece9680824cd3a044ab7338bf306 )

thanks,

Noel



More information about the LibreOffice mailing list