<html> <head> <base href="https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/"> </head> <body> <div> <a class="bz_bug_link bz_status_NEW " title="NEW - EDITING, FORMATTING: diagram didn't automatic update when change variable (recalculation not triggered)" href="https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=86321#c83">Comment # 83</a> on <a class="bz_bug_link bz_status_NEW " title="NEW - EDITING, FORMATTING: diagram didn't automatic update when change variable (recalculation not triggered)" href="https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=86321">bug 86321</a> from <a class="email" href="mailto:lajo@rn.dk" title="Lars Jødal <lajo@rn.dk>"> Lars Jødal</a> <pre>(In reply to matthewnote from <a href="show_bug.cgi?id=86321#c79">comment #79</a>) > Created <a href="http://bugs.documentfoundation.org/attachment.cgi?id=166554" name="attach_166554" title="Compare LO5 modification of Object/content.xml since removed; regression?">attachment 166554</a> <a href="http://bugs.documentfoundation.org/attachment.cgi?id=166554&action=edit" title="Compare LO5 modification of Object/content.xml since removed; regression?">[details]</a> > Compare LO5 modification of Object/content.xml since removed; regression? > > Additional xml compare report for Object/content.xml as described previous > comment. LibreOffice Calc 5 adds a new line for each and every Object > "try-staggering-first". So LO 5.x worked ok, which could mean that the original bug was solved but then some new bug caused a regression with the same or similar behaviour. Likely some optimization of diagram updating that "optimized" recalculation too much. I have performed the test from <a href="show_bug.cgi?id=86321#c28">comment #28</a> with a few 5.x versions, and can confirm that diagram update DOES work for that file. The regression is present by 6.0.0.0.beta1, while 6.0.0.0.alpha1 does update the diagram. First question: Does the test from <a href="show_bug.cgi?id=86321#c28">comment #28</a> test for "First bug" from <a href="show_bug.cgi?id=86321#c80">comment #80</a>, or for "Second bug" (now split out as <a class="bz_bug_link bz_status_NEW " title="NEW - FILESAVE: Chart defects when reopening : loss of backwards compatibility" href="show_bug.cgi?id=137735">bug 137735</a>)? Second question: What will constitute a simple test example for the other bug (whether "first" or "second") not tested for by the procedure in <a href="show_bug.cgi?id=86321#c28">comment #28</a>? (This thread is becoming quite scary just by its size. While details can reveal new findings, I think that at the present stage we are more in need of simple test cases with simple descriptions.)</pre> </div> <hr> You are receiving this mail because: <ul> <li>You are the assignee for the bug.</li> </ul> </body> </html>