Apache OpenOffice (AOO) Bugzilla – Full Text Issue Listing
|Summary:||Moving Table Rows in Writer With Drag/Drop Does Not Work Properly|
|Status:||CLOSED DUPLICATE||QA Contact:||issues@sw <issues>|
|Version:||OOo 1.1 RC||Keywords:||oooqa|
|Issue Type:||FEATURE||Latest Confirmation in:||---|
Description jcmonty 2003-08-13 17:54:42 UTC
In a text-only table in Writer (1.1rc on Win2k), selecting one or more table rows and then dragging/dropping to a new row location does not work as expected. When the selected row(s) is/are dropped where it/they should be inserted, the content of the target row where the moved row(s) is/are dropped is completely replaced and is not moved up/down to accommodate the inserted (moved) row(s). In MS Word, dragging/dropping rows to a new row location actually inserts the rows without deleting the content of the row where the moved rows are dropped. In addition, the selected row(s) that is/are moved are simply emptied and the row(s) is/are not deleted. In other words, the content gets moved but the row(s) remain in the table, empty. I attempted the same select row(s)/drag/drop behavior in StarOffice 6.1 beta and noticed the same effect with the exception that the original rows do get deleted once their content is moved.
Comment 1 guido.pinkernell 2003-11-10 20:50:06 UTC
This behaviour is reproducible with OOo 1.1.0(en) on Win98. However, I think thatÂ´s intended behaviour. OOo tables behave different to MS Word tables in many ways, and this might be one of the differences. Since you obviously want to have this altered I will change this Issuetype to Feature Request as this clearly isnÂ´t a Defect.
Comment 2 h.ilter 2003-11-11 10:13:20 UTC
HI->BH: The table rebuild is in process anyway.
Comment 3 aspangler 2004-09-21 08:54:02 UTC
This issue seems to be a copy of 13645 ( from Sun Apr 20 03:55:00 -0700 2003 ), and also of 17414 ( created by me at Fri Jul 25 10:23:00 -0700 2003 ). aspangler |--> hi Will this implemented in 2.0 ?? This would be very fine!
Comment 4 lohmaier 2004-12-26 19:36:18 UTC
as aspangler wrote: duplicate. No chance for 2.0 *** This issue has been marked as a duplicate of 13645 ***
Comment 5 lohmaier 2004-12-26 19:36:41 UTC