Andreas L. Delmelle commented on FOP-2469:
As to the latter remark, just to be clear:
I am using the exact same FO file that is attached to this issue.
I am quite certain the error is triggered due to changes in my local sandbox,
either as a result of other changes conflicting with yours or the result of
errors in resolving some merge conflicts...
It all works A-OK on my end if I remove the innermost table.
I was just wondering if it pointed to a case that was overlooked, since the
attached test _is_ rather minimal[*], and strictly speaking, from looking only
at the code, there does not seem to be a _guarantee_ that it will never happen,
i.e. that TableCellLM.getRefIPD() will _always_ be greater than or equal to
TableCellLM.getMinimumIPD() ( ? )
In addition, I was also hoping that you could offer insights as to why that
_should not_ be happening, so I would get a clue on where to start looking
[*] BTW - Can you provide some more FO examples testing other scenarios, that
we can convert to layout engine test cases and make part of the patch? That
would definitely be a valuable addition, too.
> [PATCH] auto table layout
> Key: FOP-2469
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FOP-2469
> Project: FOP
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: layout/unqualified
> Affects Versions: trunk
> Environment: Windows 7, JDK 7
> Reporter: Gregor Berg
> Assignee: Andreas L. Delmelle
> Fix For: trunk
> Attachments: 2015-05-13-auto-table-layout.patch,
> 2015-06-09-LM-to-LC-refactoring-update.patch, FOP2469-auto-table-layout.xml,
> this is a patch which enables table-layout=auto. It is quite robust, it can
> not only handle linebreaks and pagebreaks, but it also copes with auto tables
> in fixed tables in auto tables.
> Essentially, it is the patch of issue FOP-2450 adapted to the trunk version
> of FOP.
> Best regards,
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA