Issue 102981

Summary: Chaining of multiple-operations gives incorrect results
Product: Calc Reporter: bhut_ooto <bhut_ooto>
Component: uiAssignee: AOO issues mailing list <issues>
Status: CONFIRMED --- QA Contact:
Severity: Trivial    
Priority: P3 CC: issues, rb.henschel
Version: OOo 3.1Keywords: oooqa
Target Milestone: ---   
Hardware: PC   
OS: Windows Vista   
Issue Type: DEFECT Latest Confirmation in: ---
Developer Difficulty: ---
Description Flags
E11 and E12 should show the same result as B11 and B12 show the same result.
without the multiple operations none

Description bhut_ooto 2009-06-21 13:52:25 UTC
When chaining multiple-operations, one multiple-operation function corrupts the 
result from another, leaving an incorrect value in the cells.

* A1 := 2 ; A2 := 3 ; A3 := 5
* A6 := 7
* B1 := A2*A1                            // (expect: 6;  actual: 10)
* B2 := B1                               // (expect: 6;  actual: 10)
* B3 := MULTIPLE.OPERATIONS(B2; A2; A3)  // (expect: 10; actual: 10)
* B5 := B2 + B3                          // (expect: 16; actual: 20)
* B6 := MULTIPLE.OPERATIONS(B5; A1; A6)  // (expect: 56; actual: 20)

If you replace the equation B3 with its non-MULTIPLE.OPERATION() equivalent:

* B3 := A3*A1

then all of the values come out as expected, after you trick Calc to 
recalculate everything (by hitting enter at each formula which has the wrong 

Testcase is attached.
Comment 1 bhut_ooto 2009-06-21 13:53:05 UTC
Created attachment 63113 [details]
Comment 2 Regina Henschel 2009-06-21 15:21:13 UTC
Created attachment 63114 [details]
E11 and E12 should show the same result as B11 and B12 show the same result.
Comment 3 Regina Henschel 2009-06-21 15:27:48 UTC
Please ignore my attachment here, it belongs to issue 102980.
Comment 4 Regina Henschel 2009-06-21 16:04:51 UTC
It might be worse to discuss, whether it should be allowed, that
Multiple.Operations has another Multiple.Operations in its execution tree.

Nevertheless, a formula without macro should never change the content value of
another cell.
Comment 5 rpadmanabhan 2009-09-18 03:30:11 UTC
Raji Padmanabhan 091709

Could not replicate the bug on Windows Vista in buikd 3.1.

Followed the steps as given. Little more information is needed to determine how
the submitter's non-Multiple operation is working fine only after removing the
Multiple Operation. When I tried at different ways to execute this function, my
non-multiple operation always returned the correct results.  
Comment 6 rpadmanabhan 2009-09-18 12:12:19 UTC
Created attachment 64841 [details]
without the multiple operations