https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=160096
--- Comment #9 from ornanovitch <[email protected]> --- (In reply to Julien Nabet from comment #8) > Why defining a validity list if a value not on the list is accepted without > indication? There is no evidence that the “validity list” should be interpreted solely as a “permitted list”, there are only habits on this matter. What's not valid in a context is not necessarily forbidden, nor necessarily invalid in another context. e.g.: I have some sheets where validity list are displaying a dropdown with a precise list (with a formula) IF user choose A. In that case, user can choose his an item in the list. But IF user choose B, then he must enter a custom value in the same column. In that case, the validity list's formula is something like that: IF($K2=A;{some_field};"") e.g. 2: I have some sheets where validity list are displaying a dropdown with optional choices, which are valid. But the user might have the need to enter a custom value which is not proposed. For invoicing for example: when I enter a new item in my invoice, depending of the type of the stuff I sold, a list of suggested labels that I might need is displayed. Sometime those labels do the job, sometime they don't and I enter a custom value. We could find a lot of other example that illustrate how much this is practical and powerful. > So no pb for adding the feature but strongly disagree for reverting the > patch. I agree it could be a feature or an enhancement, not a reverse. But in the meantime we have to keep in mind that a lot of workflows are broken. That's life and I'm ok to deal with it by rolling back my LO version, but I guess something has to be done somehow to solve this situation. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
