Issue 60681

Reassigned to SBA.

replicated the bug in OOo2.0 on Windows xp sp2.

Steps:
1 open new empty writer
2 click "Table"--"Insert"--"Table" from top menu
3 set columns to be 2, rows to be 5 and uncheck the heading option
4 type 5,2,1,4,3 in the first column of each row in the table
5 select the whole table, then click "Table"--"Sort"
6 select the key1, Column 1 and key type as "Numeric" Order as "Ascending"
7 set Direction to "Rows" Then click "OK"

The table doesnot sort based on number.
the result is :3,4,1,2,5. it only reverse the original order

Follow-up tests:

if we do set the key type as "Alphanumeric" then sort.
after that, we can sort the table based on "Numeric"

The bug should be corrected because if user want to sort a big table,
the undesired result will make user crazy

I checked with "2.0.2  German version WIN XP: [680m5(Build9011)]" and was not
able to reproduce the problem. 

@raindrops, @zhanghongbin 
can you please attach a small and simple sample document to demonstrate the problem?

Created attachment 40183 [details]
Contains proof for BOTH types of problems described

Hi!

I have created the sample using OOo 2.0.4 and the problem is still very much there. 

Changed the summary to reflect that sorting does not work properly woith simply
entered numbers either.

Note that the contextual help file does not describe the difference between
"Numerical" and "alphanumerical" sorting. However, if the cells of a table's
column contain only numbers, both methods should have identical results.

The situation is worse when the column contains numbers that are actually
reference fields: In that case the numbers are sorted in a totally illogical
sequence (neither numeric nor alphanumeric).
***
The sample contains copies of the same table, in "BEFORE" and "AFTER" scenario.
If you want to repeat the experiment, please copyt the table in a new document
and repeat the step.

@raindrops:
What's your OS / Platform?
I can't reproduce your problem with 'Sorting problems in tables.odt'

Please check whether your problem is the same as in Issue 49629 (I believe it
is), what is fixed for OOo 2.1!

My system is Win XP, SP-2. I'll check if on NT4 also this behaves the same way
(will be able to do it in two days).

Issue 49629 describes only "part-1" in my attachment; but "part-2" (which is
different)is not described there. My original bug mentions only the reference
fields, but when zhanghongbin added sorting of ordinary numbers; I added that
example as well in my sample (as "part-1"). My bug is actually "part-2" in the
sample.

But I don't get it: If Issue 49629 is an accepted AND resolved bug, and its the
target of is 2.1, how come you are unable to reproduce the bug? It should still
be there in 2.0.2!

If you take the table in part-2 of the attachment, are you able to select the
rows 2-5 and sort them such that they are in proper ascending order? Can you
edit my sample file and post it here? Please sort both sample-1 and sample-2.

@raindrops:
I thougt only LINUX would be affected by problem in Issue 49629 - don't ask my
why :-/
So I really do not understand why your first problem was not visible on my PC,
because now I see the you reported bug, "numeric" does not work. Life is full of
surprises.

It seems that Table sort does not work correctly at all, not only for fields. I
was able to reproduce that with your part II tables and also with small self
created table with only 1 column, pls. see attached 'myowntest.odt'

So I set status to new and ask for verification of the Issue 49629 Fix.

Created attachment 40197 [details]
Table demonstrating a general table sort problem

SBA:
(0) Biggest problem: This is a collective issue! Please don't mix problems.
Better file seperate issues and set a reference by "...I think this is similar
to issue XYZ..." - Then one can see if it is a duplicate or TWO issues will go
TWO seperate ways (developer to deal with it, target to be set, CWS to
integrate, Tester to verify) this can NOT be done with ONE issue. Thank you for
your comprehension.

(1) The problem with numbers not being not sorted correctly when cell format is
"text" is solved by issue 49629.
(2) The problem with Fields is a different one (I guess it is the same problem
with Find&Replace that can not look into a filelds string, see issue 33772). 
(3) The problem of alphanumeric sorting in sample file "myowntest.odt" is still
there, even in versions with 49629 being fixed. Strange thing is that making up
a new document with the same text in the table does work. 

Please file a new issue for this and use that very bugdoc in there.

I will close this one as duplicate of issue 33772 (Strings in fields can not be
found with "Find&Replace") and put a note concerning sorting in there because I
believe this is "one go" once it gets adressed.

*** This issue has been marked as a duplicate of 33772 ***

SBA: Closed.

Please submit a new issue for the problem of alphanumeric sorting in sample file
"myowntest.odt".

SBA,

I am sorry, but declaring such bugs duplicate is not the correct process. 
First, you are NOT sure whether it's the same cause (you have only suspected 
it). Unless you have located the faulty class/function AND confirmed your 
initial diagnosis, you cannot close down other bugs. That is because closed 
bugs drop out of view. You cannot expect users to track such bugs for years and 
resurrect it if the other bug, when fixed, cannot fix this bug also.

The best way is to declare this bug "depends on" the other bug. That way, once 
the other bug gets fixed, people have to check this bug out. If this is also 
fixed automatically, close it. Otherwise break the link and pursue it 
independently.

BTW please remove the "needmore" from the "keywords" field. We have provided 
all the needed proof! 

I disagree with most of raindrop's arguments concerning advisability of
classifying this issue as a DUP of 33772. That is an issue with very few
comments, so the hint concerning the problem here will be noticed in Issue
33772. Currently it seems very plausible that Issue 60681 and  Issue 33772
describe different manifestations of the same problem, and so it is useful to
handle both problems in one issue. I will close this issue again.

But I doubt whether "Enhancement / Later" is an appropriate classification. Most
users will see that as a bug and not as a "missing feature", and we need a clear
target definition when this function will be added.

I will file another issue with a request to mention current limitations in HELP,
and of course for the 'myowntest.odt' problem.

*** This issue has been marked as a duplicate of 33772 ***

[-- This comment also added to Issue 49629 --]

> - General alphanumeric sort order problem 
>   Attachment issue 60681 'myowntest.odt'

This is INVALID.

The problem with sorting in the sample document is that the Table properties >
Text Flow > Repeat heading is set to 1. This causes the sort operation to
exclude the first row from the sort. It is a mere coincidence that the
descending order example happens to work. If you change the data order so that
the first row must move, then the descending example produces wrong results as well.

See further comment under Issue 48164.

@jes:
So it is, Issue 48164 files one aspect of the "heading handling" (what is
completely different from the original issue report), Issue 71424 an other one.