I haven't read through all your changes on GitHub yet, but all the changes so far look good. I have a few other suggestions to deduplicate some code using SheetUtil and FormulaShifter, but those changes can be made at a later date if needed.
You should be able to use git-svn to push your changes. Read through and improve our git documentation [1] if necessary. [1] https://poi.apache.org/guidelines.html#Approach+3+-+the+git+way On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 12:10 AM, Greg Woolsey <[email protected]> wrote: > Well, I couldn't stand the incomplete support, so now this supports > evaluating rules for all the different types, including range aggregates > like "greater than 2 standard deviations" and "top 10". Still doesn't > provide help assigning partitioning buckets for icon sets and colors, but > everything else is working. > > I filed a big bug with Vaadin, listing 5 core design problems I've found > with their Conditional Formatting implementation, and offering my > replacement for their code that uses the new POI evaluator instead. They > bit, and are interested, but I won't make my first commit some behemoth > that hasn't received any feedback. I know there are conventions and ideas > I've missed :) > > I need both sets of changes for my day job, so I'm all-in on doing it > right in both directions and facilitating the conversations. > > On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 11:50 PM Greg Woolsey <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Now this fork also contains ConditionalSpreadsheetEvaluator, and related >> code. The unit test is essentially a stub, but tests one basic style for >> proof of concept. >> >> I've actually implemented a version of Vaadin Spreadsheet that uses this >> new code to see how it performs, and I'm quite happy with both the improved >> performance (~50% faster than theirs) and feature coverage/accuracy. I've >> found 5 major bugs so far in what they did, most likely the result of the >> complexity of the document structure and the fact that several key pieces >> of information where still buried in the implementation classes, and hadn't >> been surfaced yet to the SS interfaces. I've done that in this branch also. >> >> My code here is my own, I didn't like anything I saw elsewhere enough to >> copy it :) >> >> Evaluation currently doesn't support range-based conditions, such as >> TOP_10, DUPLICATE, etc. Those don't seem like they'd be that bad to do, if >> someone wants to take a stab at them. I don't need them (yet), so they >> just evaluate to "false" with a TODO comment for now. >> >> Likewise, there is no code to report which partition bucket a cell falls >> into when the condition type is one of the partitioned styles, 2,3 or 4 >> value buckets, gradient fill, etc. The fact that the rule matches (based >> on range) is available, the caller would need to evaluate the rule type and >> see what lies beneath. >> >> I assume interested parties will take a look as they have time and >> inclination. I'm sure there are areas to discuss, beyond where to put the >> curly braces :) I left some comments as to alternate strategies for some >> areas, where I opted for less change to existing classes as a starting >> point, even if it means a switch...case here or there when a new method >> could be added to an Enum class instead. >> >> Hopefully the new methods on the SS interfaces are deemed minor - the >> values were already there in most cases, at least on one side or the other >> (HSSF/XSSF), with a static default to use for the other one per MS >> documentation. >> >> Greg >> >> On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 5:38 PM Greg Woolsey <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> Oh, the primary class is o.a.p.ss.formula.DataValidationEvaluator >> >> On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 5:37 PM Greg Woolsey <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> My GitHub branch now contains Data Validation code and unit tests. The >> test file DataValidationEvaluations.xlsx contains a large set of validation >> examples, including one formula example that applies to a range of cells >> and uses a relative formula. The evaluation code has corresponding logic >> to offset the relative formula Ptgs from the top left of the region. >> >> Every test is labeled in the file with column A as a description, column B >> as the cell with validation, and column C the expected result, TRUE = >> valid, FALSE = invalid. >> >> The unit test compares the POI validation result with the expected column, >> failing on boolean mismatches. >> >> Have not had time to run all tests yet, but this should only be code >> additions, not modifications. I'll run them soon. >> >> I'm sure there are code style discussions to be had - for example I >> implemented some things as inner classes for now, but we may want them >> top-level instead. >> >> Comments welcome, this is early code but is built on top of the SS >> interfaces, so should be stable for HSSF and XSSF. >> >> Greg >> >> On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 9:55 AM Greg Woolsey <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> Also, I just found this sample workbook >> <http://download.microsoft.com/download/1/6/F/16F701E9-63BA-48D3-8B48-096F9288F443/AF010235700_en-us_cfsamples_af010235700.xlsx> >> in >> the Excel online support docs. If I have time to turn that into a unit >> test, it's about as complete as we could want. Some parts are lost saving >> as HSSF, but we can then test that we evaluate what remains the same way as >> newer Excel when opening a legacy formatted file. >> >> On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 9:38 AM Greg Woolsey <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> Thanks, that makes sense wrt custom implementations of FormulaEvaluator - >> I hadn't thought about anyone rolling their own, but it's an interface, so >> quite possible. Too bad we can't require Java 8 yet and use default >> methods. >> >> I can work with the new *Evaluator class idea. And the HSSF limitations >> will just mean more unit tests :) I have Excel 2016 available so I can >> create test workbooks, save them as both XLSX and XLS, and compare >> evaluations. I can then write unit tests based on them that expect the >> results seen in Excel. That should give us reference points for confidence >> in our replication of their logic, especially around rule priority/order >> and XLS HSSF files. >> >> On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 11:05 PM Nick Burch <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On Sat, 28 Jan 2017, Greg Woolsey wrote: >> > As noted in one of the method JavaDocs, we also need to expose and make >> use >> > of the ConditionalFormattingRule "priority" attribute. That's key to >> > matching the right rule when more than one rule applies to a cell. Only >> > the first match in priority order is applied. >> >> Your slight challenge is that not all Conditional Formatting rules have a >> priority... XLSX ones do, and newer XLS ones based on CFRule12Record (sid >> = 0x087A) do, but the older XLS ones (CFRuleRecord / 0x01B1) don't. I'm >> not sure what Excel does for those, but my hunch (based on our API) is >> that it uses their order as a priority. >> >> >> > I've created a fork in GitHub for this, and committed a stab at >> > high-level API methods that could be added to the FormulaEvaluator >> > interface: >> > >> https://github.com/WoozyG/poi/commit/d44fee7bd03ed450af589467ec90e2581b9f2b16$ >> >> FormulaEvaluator is an interface, which we have 4 implementations of in >> our codebabse, and I'd guess that other complex users of POI will have >> dozens more. I'm not sure, therefore, that we want to be putting all of >> the CF and DV logic methods on there, especially as it'll be common to all >> implementations >> >> The HSSF classes for CF all use org.apache.poi.ss.formula.Formula which is >> PTG based. The HSSF classes for DV seem to store the raw PTGs. >> >> If we added two new SS usermodel classes, eg >> ConditionalFormattingEvaluator and DataValidationEvaluator, these could be >> classes (not interfaces) with your proposed new methods on. They could >> hold the logic (once) for all formats (as it's basically the same on all) >> for priority, checking etc >> >> Doing that would also mean that "our" new classes could call out to our >> existing low-level ones to evaluate formulas. That would mean we wouldn't >> have to make a breaking change to the FormulaEvaluator interface too >> >> Might that work for you? >> >> > No implementations have been done yet, and the Vaadin comments indicate >> > HSSF doesn't parse conditional formatting properly or something, and >> can't >> > be evaluated correctly currently. I don't know exactly what they found >> > wrong, and it's rather annoying they didn't file any bugs. >> >> I think that comment is out of date, from before the CF work in 3.13 >> >> Nick >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] >> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
