https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=160117
ady <[email protected]> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ever confirmed|0 |1 Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW --- Comment #8 from ady <[email protected]> --- There seems to be some priority difference between LO 7.6 and 24.2, in the way different conditional format rules are applied on overlapping ranges. I am not sure whether this change is intentional or not. In Manage Conditional Format: * the first range is A4:I12, which has 2 conditional rules; both rules have a style that includes the italic format. * the second range, A4:I12;A13:I20, partially overlaps with the first one, and this second range also has 2 conditional rules; both of these rules do _not_ include the italic format in their respective styles. * there is a third range, A13:I20, which has 2 conditional rules; both rules have a style that includes the italic format. The rules for this third range are equivalent to the rules used for the first range, A4:I12. The resulting render in LO 7.6 shows the italic format, whereas in LO 24.8 alpha it does not. We could be tempted to criticize the way these ranges were originally formed, or whether these should be automatically and forcefully combined – to which I have expressed my opposition in other reports – but that would be off-topic. The main point here is that the resulting render is different, suggesting that the priority regarding the overlapping ranges is different in LO 24.2 than in LO 7.6. Please note that the priority regarding the conditions themselves, within each set of ranges, might or might not be the problem; we would need a different example in order to test this. The difference between LO 7.6 and 24.2 seems to be in how the overlapping ranges are combined; which exact set of conditions takes priority. Please also note that, in this sample file, the set of ranges are not necessarily equal; the overlapping is "partial" (A4:I12 vs A4:I12;A13:I20), but it could had been even more fragmented (say, A4:I14;A6:J20 or whatever). Again: I'm not suggesting to force the unification of ranges, and IDK whether this difference in priority was intentional; this sample case might just be a consequence of an intentional change in Calc. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
