https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=172202
ady <[email protected]> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Ever confirmed|0 |1 --- Comment #4 from ady <[email protected]> --- Using attachment 207187, I can confirm the problem with a recent LO Dev 26.8. In LO Dev 26.8, there is a new Error Alert > "Handle invalid values" checkbox. It seems to be Enabled by default. Apparently, the new "Handle invalid values" checkbox should had been set as Disabled by default for compatibility reasons. This is relevant for compatibility with other spreadsheet tools and with older versions of Calc. I say "apparently" because there have been several intermediate changes to Data Validity since LO 24.2.0, so by now I have lost track of what exactly the older default behavior really was. There might be some other details / options / experimental settings too (introduced after LO 24.2). Allowing new / different behavior is welcome, but I disagree with breaking prior default behavior with no good reason (which is the status in LO Dev 26.8 as of 2026-05-24, and since LO 24.2.1 included). The amount of incompatibilities (breaking established behavior) in Data Validity since LO 24.2.1 makes no sense, all because of lack of experience and inaccurate naming of options and Help content. My suggestion would be for developers (and other relevant authors / committers) to make all the Data Validity features in LO Dev 26.8 as compatible as possible with the behavior of LO 7.6; i.e. introduce whichever new checkbox or alternatives you want (and name anything however you want in order to make them clearly understood by everyone) but the default behavior shall still be the same as in "classic" LO 7.6 (and as in other spreadsheet tools), so older worksheets (ods, xls, xlsx...) will keep working as they used to do without having to (learn about the changes and then) modify each old workbook. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
