https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=145970
Ming Hua <[email protected]> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- See Also| |https://bugs.documentfounda | |tion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=93 | |300 CC| |[email protected] --- Comment #5 from Ming Hua <[email protected]> --- I can also reproduce with 7.3.0 Beta1. However, after examining the attached spreadsheet and reading the bibisected commit in comment 3, I'd like to argue that this is the result of an intentional change and expected behavior, and the user should change their document instead. The column J of attachment 176601 has "Default" cell style, which doesn't seem to set the numbers format. So likely the column is set to "Date" format with direct formatting (didn't check the XML source to confirm). Then on top of it two conditional formatting are applied, one set to apply "cf110" cell style (green background), the other "cf111" (red background). Now if we look at the "cf110" and "cf111" cell styles closely, "cf110" has the numbers format set to "Date", the same as direct formatting; however "cf111" has the numbers format "Number", different from the direct formatting's "Date". Therefore after commit 0b9e0f20763f0e723d66f31aee85205deec9f6f8, the "cf111" conditional formatting takes precedence, overwriting direct formatting's "Date" format and displays "Number" format instead. Modifying "cf111" cell style and explicitly set numbers format to "Date" will get the same displaying result as pre-6.3.4. IMHO bug 93300 should be reopened and this can be marked as duplicate of that one. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
