https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=127745

--- Comment #5 from John <john.h...@yahoo.co.uk> ---
Created attachment 86388
  --> https://bz.apache.org/ooo/attachment.cgi?id=86388&action=edit
Sammy Russel 1draft - CORRECTED.odt file

I can confirm that Writer is adding this corruption to the .odt file.  It is
repeatable - see the attached Sammy Russel 1draft - CORRECTED.odt file.

Steps to cause Writer to corrupt the .odt file.

1  Download Sammy Russel 1draft.odt from [Solved] Read-Error at
https://forum.openoffice.org/en/forum/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=93024#p442216 or it
is the first file attached to this report (36kB).

2  Extract content.XML.  Note that the P1 Style definition has been corrupted
and redundant and incorrect office:name="__Annotation__153_24419901911111111"
office:name="__Annotation__158_2441990191111"
office:name="__Annotation__248_244199019111111"
office:name="__Annotation__401_244199019111"
office:name="__Annotation__414_24419901911" has been inserted into the P1 Style
definition.  

3  Delete these redundant items and re-insert content.XML to get the attached
file Sammy Russel 1draft - CORRECTED.odt.  At this stage it is thought that the
.odt file is OK.

4 Open Sammy Russel 1draft - CORRECTED.odt.  The file opens without problem.

5  Make a trivial edit (add a space in front of Case Summary) and save the
file.

Expected result:  File should not be corrupted when saved.

Actual result:  Writer corrupts the P1 Style definition by inserting one or
more office:name definitions into the P1 Style definition.

Notes:

1.  It appears that the file was created by author SN using AOO Writer.  The
file was sent to reviewer SD who used MS Word and recorded changes on 20 Mar
2018.  Some changes were "Comments attached to a range of characters" and it is
these Comments which use the office:name definitions.

2.  Author SN then recorded more changes to the file using AOO on 22 Mar. 
Record Changes is still ON. 

3.  At some stage, the file became corrupted.  This probably happened when
author SN edited and saved the file after it had been edited with MS Word (and
as described in Step 5 above).

4.  Analysis of the time stamps of the edits shows that each change is timed at
nn:nn:00.0n seconds.  It seems strange to me that the time is always set to
00.0n seconds.  The times are shown below where 20 = date 20th. 

The first five office:name ... appear in the file, and also corrupt the P1
Style definition.  The sixth, seventh and eight appear in the file but do NOT
corrupt the P1 Style definition.  The sixth was the first, recorded at
09:51:00.02.  

The other twenty times are recorded changes which were not Comments added to a
range of characters.  Note that the same 12:18:00.06 time is recorded for two
different changes.

Note the multiple adding of digits "111...".  

Note how the decimal component of the seconds increments throughout - I would
expect it to be more random.

The times below are in the order in which they appear, from start to end, in
content.xml.

office:name="__Annotation__153_24419901911111111" line  200  20  9:56:00.04  SD
office:name="__Annotation__158_2441990191111"     line  220  20  9:57:00.04  SD
office:name="__Annotation__248_244199019111111"   line  351  20 10:39:00.04  SD 
office:name="__Annotation__401_244199019111"      line  859  20 12:18:00.06  SD 
office:name="__Annotation__414_24419901911"       line  958  20 12:20:00.06  SD

office:name="__Annotation__3_244199019"           line 1260  20  9:51:00.02  SD
office:name="__Annotation__396_244199019"         line 1522  20 12:18:00.06  SD 
office:name="__Annotation__551_244199019"         line 1636  20 12:50:00.08  SD 

09:54:00:04
11:50:00.04 
10:43:00.05 
10:41:00.05
12:21:00.05 
11:40:00.05 
11:52:00.05
11:56:00.06
12:43:00.06 
12:18:00.06  line 816 
12:27:00.06 
12:29:00.07 
12:28:00.07  
12:39:00.07 
12:40:00.07 
12:42:00.08
12:42:00.08 
12:44:00.08 
12:46:00.08
12:50:00.08

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the issue.

Reply via email to