https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=153506
--- Comment #15 from [email protected] --- (In reply to bwilderhoo from comment #14) > (In reply to m.a.riosv from comment #13) > > (In reply to bwilderhoo from comment #12) > > > ....... In the provided sample data you see that there is no references > > > to $Budget.$B24 in the single combined cell range CF. This info has been > > > lost in the Manage Conditional Formatting dialog. > > > ..... > > > > I explain to you that in comment#6. > > Added new expense to the budget in between cell phone and electricity to > test theory that missing $Budget.$B24 from the Manage Conditional Format is > not a problem for proper conditional formatting of the monthly electric > charges in new sheet 2023, as implied in comment 6. Notice in this slightly > modified spreadsheet that Feb electricity is incorrectly highlighted as > yellow in the new 2023 sheet, but not in the original yyyy spreadsheet. > And reviewing the Manage Conditional Formatting dialog for both sheets shows > that: > > 1. The condition for range B19:M19 was correctly updated in the yyyy sheet > to compare cell value against $Budget.$B25, rather than against the prior > value in $Budget.$B24. > 2. Whereas, there is no visible change to the single merged condition shown > in sheet 2023 Managed Conditional Formatting dialog. > > In short, the two sheets, one being a full copy of the other, behave > differently for conditional formatting. In sheet 2023, which has the merged > single conditional format, $Budget.$B24 is treated as $Budget.$B{23+1}, > whereas in yyyy $Budget.$B24 is treated as $Budget.$B24. Sheet 2023 does > not allow for relative row addressing to be used within a merged range. > This is a bug... plain and simple. The correct logic for merging of > conditional formats during the copy sheet function is to ensure that only > absolute addressing is used in all of the conditions for adjacent ranges > that might be merged. If any relative addressing is found, then skip > merging for that set of adjacent ranges. I know this would mean a lot less > merging would be done, but it would also ensure that sheets copied from > other sheets that use relative addressing have logically equivalent > conditional formatting that continue to work as intended even when rows are > added or deleted resulting in relative address updates. > > I have reviewed ask.libreoffice.org as well as other bugs that folks have > opened related to conditional formatting problems... and my view of this, > which seems similar to those echoed by others in some of the bugs, is that > conditional formatting has some serious hurdles to overcome. One individual > in a bug report indicated that the issue(s) may require structural code > changes. I don't know about that, but I do know that inconsistencies in > behavior that folks are reporting, similar to what I am reporting in this > bug, give at least the appearance of some significant usage model holes. I > can imagine many other problems that might be solved by restricting merging > to those adjacent ranges that only use absolute addressing throughout. > > Sorry about rambling on... but thanks for the lively discussions on this > matter. Hopefully the info exchange can facilitate resolving some of the > outstanding issues folks are having with conditional formatting. NOTE: For some reason, I am unable to attach the slightly modified spreadsheet. But if you have downloaded the originally attached spreadsheet and want to recreate the results I cover in this comment, simply go to the Budget sheet and insert row above Electricity row and add Car expense for $50.00. Then review the other two sheets as described in the comment. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
