Issue 63381

Summary: 1.x to 2.0 incompatibility in LOOKUP should be documented
Product: Calc Reporter: dridgway <dridgway>
Component: uiAssignee: AOO issues mailing list <issues>
Status: CONFIRMED --- QA Contact:
Severity: Trivial    
Priority: P3 CC: issues
Version: OOo 2.0   
Target Milestone: ---   
Hardware: All   
OS: All   
Issue Type: ENHANCEMENT Latest Confirmation in: ---
Developer Difficulty: ---

Description dridgway 2006-03-20 00:37:29 UTC
As described by multiple reporters in issue 58286, and by another in private
email, the behavior of LOOKUP on unsorted data has changed between 1.x and 2.0.
1.x returns the expected result, even if the data is unsorted, while 2.0 returns
nonsense. Since the documentation for LOOKUP has always required sorted data,
the behavior of 2.0 is not a defect. However, for users who developed perfectly
functioning spreadsheets with unsorted data using 1.x versions, the lack of
compatibility in the undocumented behavior is experienced as a defect. This
incompatibility should get documented somewhere, so that people porting
spreadsheets to 2.0 can check to make sure their spreadsheets are using LOOKUP
correctly.
Comment 1 principia 2006-03-22 17:26:04 UTC
To document the way lookup is working only helps to avoid the errors.
However looking deeper in the problem it seems that the requirement of sorted
data is a real weakness of OO Rel 2.X.
Typically data is sorted in a logical way like employers name, share name,
company name. OO requires that you sort all these data in a diffrent way e.g.
employer No. Your datafiles will loose all the logical order just to satisfy the
algorithm.
The way OO 1,X works is much more user friendly and locical

principia
Comment 2 frank 2006-04-07 13:46:08 UTC
Hi Mathias,

please evaluate and target as needed.

Frank
Comment 3 matthias.mueller-prove 2006-04-07 14:15:03 UTC
MMP>NN: Hi Niklas, I need more information on this issue. Can you please tell me
if/what/why this has changed between OOo 1.1 and OOo 2.0? 
Comment 4 matthias.mueller-prove 2006-04-07 14:15:35 UTC
cc me
Comment 5 niklas.nebel 2006-04-07 14:41:21 UTC
See issue 2168.
Comment 6 schodet 2007-09-09 12:58:49 UTC
I have just been biten by this issue.
Why not add a warning about sort order in the function wizard?
Comment 7 matthias.mueller-prove 2009-09-06 10:14:39 UTC
I am no longer officially active on OOo. Please take over.