sw/source/core/crsr/crsrsh.cxx | 13 +++++++++++++
1 file changed, 13 insertions(+)
New commits:
commit 87f17803a907c29a121fcb84588da98a51cca543
Author: Mike Kaganski <mike.kagan...@collabora.com>
AuthorDate: Thu Sep 15 11:24:32 2022 +0300
Commit: Michael Stahl <michael.st...@allotropia.de>
CommitDate: Fri Sep 16 14:30:08 2022 +0200
tdf#106959: use table's first content node for cursor cleanup
The problem was that when doing the SHELL mail merge with a document
starting with a table, the generated marks point to the first node on
the page, which is not a content node, but a table node. When getting
page numbers for such mark, cursor got cleaned up, meaning that it
looked for a content node as the cursor position. The lookup tried
to go to a previous content node first, and that gave a content node
on the previous page.
The cursor position cleanup was introduced for i#18014 in commit
468c7b8d3287712c6959cd531c71875f4d26bcbc
Author Jens-Heiner Rechtien <h...@openoffice.org>
Date Fri Jan 04 12:19:29 2008 +0000
INTEGRATION: CWS sw8u10bf02 (1.66.92); FILE MERGED
The bug was incorrect restoration of cursor position after inserting
a row to a table, placing cursor there, and undoing.
I have checked that the mentioned scenario keeps the cursor inside the
table, not jumps to the beginning of the document, as it did before
the mentined commit.
Unfortunately, I don't see how to test this properly in
sw/qa/extras/mailmerge/mailmerge.cxx; FILE mailmerge tests there use
a different code path; and SHELL tests obviously do not perform the
post-processing from SwMMResultSaveDialog::SaveOutputHdl_Impl. Likely,
an UITest would be needed.
But why do we use this SHELL + post-processing here, instead of using
the same FILE mail merge that is performed from form letter dialog,
when SwDBManager::Merge is called from SwDBManager::ExecuteFormLetter
with properly constructed SwMergeDescriptor? That would also speed up
the merge, avoiding extra steps of generating full resulting document
in memory, saving it to a temporary file, just to split it to pieces
(TODO/LATER).
Change-Id: I269de4ae3407261c4f6df51cacd5fc72643fd29a
Reviewed-on: https://gerrit.libreoffice.org/c/core/+/139973
Tested-by: Jenkins
Reviewed-by: Mike Kaganski <mike.kagan...@collabora.com>
(cherry picked from commit eb30df9b8e86f756ebc66be86ae2eb345fafc850)
Reviewed-on: https://gerrit.libreoffice.org/c/core/+/139983
Reviewed-by: Michael Stahl <michael.st...@allotropia.de>
diff --git a/sw/source/core/crsr/crsrsh.cxx b/sw/source/core/crsr/crsrsh.cxx
index 18199f2ebcd3..b24920da9b2f 100644
--- a/sw/source/core/crsr/crsrsh.cxx
+++ b/sw/source/core/crsr/crsrsh.cxx
@@ -3642,6 +3642,19 @@ void SwCursorShell::ClearUpCursors()
pStartCursor->DeleteMark();
bChanged = true;
}
+ if (pStartCursor->GetPoint()->nNode.GetNode().IsTableNode())
+ {
+ // tdf#106959: When cursor points to start of a table, the proper
content
+ // node is the first one inside the table, not the previous one
+ SwNodes& aNodes = GetDoc()->GetNodes();
+ SwNodeIndex aIdx(pStartCursor->GetPoint()->nNode);
+ if (SwNode* pNode = aNodes.GoNext(&aIdx))
+ {
+ SwPaM aTmpPam(*pNode);
+ *pStartCursor = aTmpPam;
+ bChanged = true;
+ }
+ }
if( !sw_PosOk( *pStartCursor->GetPoint() ) )
{
SwNodes & aNodes = GetDoc()->GetNodes();
