[Libreoffice-bugs] [Bug 107459] MATCH with third parameter MatchType=-1 fails if the SearchVector is passed directly as the result of an array-formula.

[bugzilla-daemon]

https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=107459

Eike Rathke  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
   Assignee|libreoffice-b...@lists.free |er...@redhat.com
   |desktop.org |

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.___
Libreoffice-bugs mailing list
Libreoffice-bugs@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-bugs

[Libreoffice-bugs] [Bug 107459] MATCH with third parameter MatchType=-1 fails if the SearchVector is passed directly as the result of an array-formula.

[bugzilla-daemon]

https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=107459

Eike Rathke  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

Version|3.3.0 release   |Inherited From OOo

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.___
Libreoffice-bugs mailing list
Libreoffice-bugs@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-bugs

[Libreoffice-bugs] [Bug 107459] MATCH with third parameter MatchType=-1 fails if the SearchVector is passed directly as the result of an array-formula.

[bugzilla-daemon]

https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=107459

Roman Kuznetsov <79045_79...@mail.ru> changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||108827


Referenced Bugs:

https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=108827
[Bug 108827] [META] Calc functions bugs and enhancements
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.___
Libreoffice-bugs mailing list
Libreoffice-bugs@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-bugs

[Libreoffice-bugs] [Bug 107459] MATCH with third parameter MatchType= -1 fails if the SearchVector is passed directly as the result of an array-formula.

[bugzilla-daemon]

https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=107459

--- Comment #6 from QA Administrators  ---
** Please read this message in its entirety before responding **

To make sure we're focusing on the bugs that affect our users today,
LibreOffice QA is asking bug reporters and confirmers to retest open, confirmed
bugs which have not been touched for over a year.

There have been thousands of bug fixes and commits since anyone checked on this
bug report. During that time, it's possible that the bug has been fixed, or the
details of the problem have changed. We'd really appreciate your help in
getting confirmation that the bug is still present.

If you have time, please do the following:

Test to see if the bug is still present with the latest version of LibreOffice
from https://www.libreoffice.org/download/

If the bug is present, please leave a comment that includes the information
from Help - About LibreOffice.

If the bug is NOT present, please set the bug's Status field to
RESOLVED-WORKSFORME and leave a comment that includes the information from Help
- About LibreOffice.

Please DO NOT

Update the version field
Reply via email (please reply directly on the bug tracker)
Set the bug's Status field to RESOLVED - FIXED (this status has a particular
meaning that is not 
appropriate in this case)


If you want to do more to help you can test to see if your issue is a
REGRESSION. To do so:
1. Download and install oldest version of LibreOffice (usually 3.3 unless your
bug pertains to a feature added after 3.3) from
http://downloadarchive.documentfoundation.org/libreoffice/old/

2. Test your bug
3. Leave a comment with your results.
4a. If the bug was present with 3.3 - set version to 'inherited from OOo';
4b. If the bug was not present in 3.3 - add 'regression' to keyword


Feel free to come ask questions or to say hello in our QA chat:
https://kiwiirc.com/nextclient/irc.freenode.net/#libreoffice-qa

Thank you for helping us make LibreOffice even better for everyone!

Warm Regards,
QA Team

MassPing-UntouchedBug

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.___
Libreoffice-bugs mailing list
Libreoffice-bugs@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-bugs

[Libreoffice-bugs] [Bug 107459] MATCH with third parameter MatchType= -1 fails if the SearchVector is passed directly as the result of an array-formula.

[bugzilla-daemon]

https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=107459

m.a.riosv  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
 Ever confirmed|0   |1

--- Comment #5 from m.a.riosv  ---
(In reply to Wolfgang Jäger from comment #4)
>..
> 
For me, if it is not explicit, it's not explicit, and I can't interpreter as I
like.
Even I think I understand your interpretation, that sounds reasonable.

> Is there a draft for a next version of odf (recalc) concerning this?
https://www.oasis-open.org/committees/document.php?document_id=51469_abbrev=office-collab

In any case testing with a inner array gives what seems an erroneous result

=MATCH(5;{20;19;18;17;16;15;14;13;12;11;10;6;6;5;5;4;4;3;2;1};-1) = 14
   1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9 10  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 20

If I'm not wrong result should be 15 as happens with an unmodified address
array.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.___
Libreoffice-bugs mailing list
Libreoffice-bugs@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-bugs

[Libreoffice-bugs] [Bug 107459] MATCH with third parameter MatchType= -1 fails if the SearchVector is passed directly as the result of an array-formula.

[bugzilla-daemon]

https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=107459

--- Comment #4 from Wolfgang Jäger  ---
(In reply to m.a.riosv from comment #3)
> I have done a new sample, where to seems the issue is the -1 for third MATCH
> parameter.

Ack. See subject. However, I wouldn't see the -1 as the issue but as a
condition for its incidence.

> But it happens with a modified 'Reference|Array SearchRegion', what I am not
> sure it is allowed in the specification, at least explicitly. 

What do you think is the rationale for the alternative "Reference|Array" given
in the type position for the parameter SearchRange. We shouldn't get deceived
by the slightly misleading name. Parameter names are arbitrary basically.
However, type names used somewhere should be defined in advance. 
In fact there is an issue with  subchapter 4.10 of the document you mentioned.
It reads as if "Array" is synonym with something like "Range" or
"RangeReference". The implemented functions concerned accept Calculated Arrays
anyway), and I assume this to be the intention of OpenDocument V1.2 part 2,
too. A different interpretation would make powerless toys of some functions. 

Is there a draft for a next version of odf (recalc) concerning this?

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.___
Libreoffice-bugs mailing list
Libreoffice-bugs@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-bugs

[Libreoffice-bugs] [Bug 107459] MATCH with third parameter MatchType= -1 fails if the SearchVector is passed directly as the result of an array-formula.

[bugzilla-daemon]

https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=107459

--- Comment #3 from m.a.riosv  ---
Created attachment 132971
  --> https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/attachment.cgi?id=132971=edit
Sample file

N(In reply to Wolfgang Jäger from comment #2)
> (In reply to m.a.riosv from comment #1)
> > So it can be a trick way to get the reverse behavior.
> 
> Who should have decided to establish that "trick way"? Where is it specified?
I didn't say that.

I have done a new sample, where to seems the issue is the -1 for third MATCH
parameter.
But it happens with a modified 'Reference|Array SearchRegion', what I am not
sure it is allowed in the specification, at least explicitly.

http://docs.oasis-open.org/office/v1.2/csd06/OpenDocument-v1.2-csd06-part2.pdf
page 133.
Syntax: MATCH(Scalar Search ;Reference|Array SearchRegion [;Integer MatchType =
1 ]

Hi @Eike, @Winfried some light.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.___
Libreoffice-bugs mailing list
Libreoffice-bugs@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-bugs

[Libreoffice-bugs] [Bug 107459] MATCH with third parameter MatchType= -1 fails if the SearchVector is passed directly as the result of an array-formula.

[bugzilla-daemon]

https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=107459

--- Comment #2 from Wolfgang Jäger  ---
(In reply to m.a.riosv from comment #1)
> The issue with your second formula is the use of '0+' as array modification,
> with a modification different than '0', or with any other modification or a
> clean array works fine for me.
> 
> So it can be a trick way to get the reverse behavior.

Who should have decided to establish that "trick way"? Where is it specified?

Of course, the "0+" is only the extreme simplification of what I had originally
when I discovered the bug. There are also relevant formulas resulting in arrays
to pass to MATCH in the second place. 
In fact I discovered the bug when I tried to get a REVERSE MATCH against an
ascending column-array by something like 
{=MATCH(Value;INDEX($B$1:$B$10;ROW($B$10)-ROW($B$1:$B$10)+1;1);-1)}
I did not find too easily the way back to the root of the bug: making a
difference between an array referenced directly and one with the identical
elements calculated in the parameter position where it's used. 
The bug is from ancient days and seemingly was not reported all the time. It's
a bug nonetheless. And it may e.g. throw light on a flaw in the design of the
code concerned with array evaluation generally. It may also be an isolated
problem with MATCH.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.___
Libreoffice-bugs mailing list
Libreoffice-bugs@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-bugs

[Libreoffice-bugs] [Bug 107459] MATCH with third parameter MatchType= -1 fails if the SearchVector is passed directly as the result of an array-formula.

[bugzilla-daemon]

https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=107459

m.a.riosv  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||miguelangelrv@libreoffice.o
   ||rg

--- Comment #1 from m.a.riosv  ---
The issue with your second formula is the use of '0+' as array modification,
with a modification different than '0', or with any other modification or a
clean array works fine for me.

So it can be a trick way to get the reverse behavior.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.___
Libreoffice-bugs mailing list
Libreoffice-bugs@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-bugs

[Libreoffice-bugs] [Bug 107459] MATCH with third parameter MatchType= -1 fails if the SearchVector is passed directly as the result of an array-formula.

[bugzilla-daemon]

https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=107459

Wolfgang Jäger  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||j...@psilosoph.de
Summary|MATCH with third|MATCH with third parameter
   |parameter=-1 fails if the   |MatchType=-1 fails if the
   |SearchVevtor is passed  |SearchVector is passed
   |directly as the result of   |directly as the result of
   |an array-formula.   |an array-formula.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.___
Libreoffice-bugs mailing list
Libreoffice-bugs@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-bugs