Issue 8808

Summary: Need a solver
Product: Calc Reporter: skiani <skiani>
Component: codeAssignee: frank
Status: CLOSED FIXED QA Contact: issues@sc <issues>
Severity: Trivial    
Priority: P3 CC: alex.thurgood, apulsifer, bettina.haberer, harald.schilly, issues, jimthompson5802, kamataki, kami911, khirano, le.farfadet.spatial, lohmaier, manens, mattfewins, mmeeks, norbert.notz, ooo, pagalmes.lists, rouben, stp, stx123, yoshimit
Version: OOo 1.0.1Keywords: oooqa
Target Milestone: ---   
Hardware: All   
OS: All   
Issue Type: FEATURE Latest Confirmation in: ---
Developer Difficulty: ---
Issue Depends on: 70117    
Issue Blocks: 15522    
Description Flags
Demonstration prototype of a possible Solver implementation.
New version received from Jim
Some code which solve linear system.
New version, improved memory gestion and adding over and under determined systems.
Some minor improvments.
Solver UNO Component (UI demo)
Solver component source code (rev. 62)
Example that doesn't work
patch set for scsolver
Testdocument none

Description skiani 2002-10-29 15:21:46 UTC
One of the major missing features of the Spreadsheet application is a Solver. A
invaluable too for optimization problems. We even used the one in Excel in an
optimization class at MIT. Excel includes it as part of the analysis toolpak
plug and it shows up in the Tools menu. Gnumeric also has an equivalent
implimintation also in the Tool menu.

What I don't like about Excel/Gnumeric solver is that it is a seperate operation
not tied to a cell. While in Excel you can save the solver model, but it is just
saved with the whole file not aligned particular cell. I think an interface to
setting the function values similar to Excel/Gnumeric is ok but, ideally you
could implement a "solver" function the values of target cell, changing cells,
and constraints (and other optional inputs like interations, time, convergance,
etc.) are  mergely parts of the function. That way if I set up an optimization
on one column of data I could just replicated it over to other columns of data.

Additionally, if one of the function flag could be set to "auto mode on" or
"auto mode off" the solve could automatically be run if any of the input cells
are changed. If it is set to "auto mode off" the cell containing the "solver"
function would act as a button if double clicked running the solver, you could
also have it flash or change color if it needs to be run because an input cell
has been changed.
Comment 1 peter.junge 2002-11-28 17:32:16 UTC
Hi Falko,
1 4 U.
Comment 2 falko.tesch 2003-09-11 15:26:47 UTC
Even this issue is not covered by our PCD for 2.0 I consider this a
useful feature that should be discussed in the feature commission..
Comment 3 falko.tesch 2003-09-11 15:27:14 UTC
Comment 4 norbert2 2004-03-21 09:16:51 UTC
Such a feature would be very useful!
Comment 5 bettina.haberer 2004-04-08 20:17:35 UTC
Sorry, no chance to get a solver for the Q. 
Comment 6 loys 2004-05-30 09:51:59 UTC
It would be very useful.
Comment 7 masato12610 2004-06-20 21:36:34 UTC
Created attachment 16029 [details]
Demonstration prototype of a possible Solver implementation.
Comment 8 masato12610 2004-06-20 23:53:55 UTC
Usage note on the prototype spreadsheet SolverPrototype.sxc.  Do not run model 
within a browser, run-time errors occur.  Save spreadsheet on local disk drive 
and open spreadsheet from local drive.
Comment 9 frank 2004-06-22 10:33:55 UTC

after a short look, I'd like to say 'Great work' and thanks for the efforts.

Comment 10 bettina.haberer 2004-06-22 16:00:51 UTC
Hello Niklas, here is a prototype for a solver. Please have a look at it, thank
you. I set CC on bh.
Comment 11 niklas.nebel 2004-07-01 10:46:06 UTC
Created attachment 16216 [details]
New version received from Jim
Comment 12 skiani 2004-07-02 16:35:56 UTC
Hi, looks promising great work. I had some trouble with third test but maybe I'm
doing it wrong. Your approach is similar to Excel, you should take a look at
gnumeric's solver too, it has a slightly different approach.  Where do you
intend to ultimately store the run setup? Excel 2k automatically keeps the last
solver senario per sheet, this is useful but not perfect. It also allows for
saving the senario in a series of cells. It would be perferiable IMO to have a
solver function that has all the senario parameters and settings in one cell,
e.g. =solver(B2; max; B3:B8; (B9>1;B10<30;B11=int); 1000; 0.001; ...). That way
you can quickly setup optimizations for many rows or columns of you analysis.
Comment 13 masato12610 2004-07-02 16:45:27 UTC
Re: saving the optimization parameters.  The next iteration should include 
the "Load" and "Save" options to save to specific location on the worksheet. 
Comment 14 pjensen 2004-11-10 14:47:20 UTC
This feature is a really useful business tool. BUinsess users are still using
Excel because of the solver feature, and if we implement this, it will be one
less barrier to OOo being adopted in business.
Comment 15 farfadet 2004-12-09 22:35:27 UTC
Adding myself to CC.
Comment 16 farfadet 2004-12-17 03:44:01 UTC
Created attachment 20595 [details]
Some code which solve linear system.
Comment 17 farfadet 2004-12-21 21:07:38 UTC
Created attachment 20749 [details]
New version, improved memory gestion and adding over and under determined systems.
Comment 18 farfadet 2005-01-04 09:58:14 UTC
Created attachment 21035 [details]
Some minor improvments.
Comment 19 frank 2005-01-05 15:03:27 UTC
*** Issue 39387 has been marked as a duplicate of this issue. ***
Comment 20 kyoshida 2005-03-31 16:56:33 UTC
Just to let people know, I've started doing some work on
maximization/minimization of linear/non-linear systems, plus some interface
work.  You can find the details and current status at:

Comment 21 kyoshida 2005-06-04 05:29:45 UTC
Created attachment 26871 [details]
Solver UNO Component (UI demo)
Comment 22 kyoshida 2005-06-04 06:08:17 UTC
This attachment contains what I have done so far.  I have implemented:

* UNO AWT Dialog for basic operations to define a constrained linear model.
* One linear optimization algorithm (revised simplex) for solving a constrained
linear model (included, but not yet linked to the main component).

Note: this is for UI demo purpose only!  It does not solve a model yet despite
what the name (solver!) suggests.  Ok, going forward...

My near-term plan (~2 months):

* Complete one additional linear algorithm (bounded revised simplex) which
yields higher performance on identical models.  But this algorithm requires a
slightly different model format, so some UI change may be necessary.

* Fix the ugliness of my UI code.  I have studied a great deal on how to write a
"good" C++ code after I did the initial UI coding, so, now that code looks very
disorganized and ugly! hence needs to be fixed.  This means my internal UI code
will change drastically in the next few months.

* Have the component actually use the enclosed LP algorithm to solve something.
 Again, that's the sole purpose of the existence of this component. Right? ;-)

My mid-term plan (~4-6 months):

* Complete a non-linear algorithm to solve (un)constrained non-linear models.
* Integrate Yoann's code for solving under-determined linear systems.

Of course, bug fixes must be done whenever they are discovered... *sigh*

Comments are welcome.

Comment 23 kyoshida 2005-06-27 05:16:01 UTC
Created attachment 27505 [details]
Solver component source code (rev. 62)
Comment 24 kyoshida 2005-06-27 05:24:21 UTC
This new code implements all of my 2-month plan items plus some more.

Some highlights are:

* This version *does* solve a linear model by using the revised simplex method,
but it does so only in stdout.

* The code for the bounded revised simplex method is included, but not being
used from the UI yet.

* A prototype for unconstrained non-linear model by the Quasi-Newton BFGS is
included under numeric/python_code (yes it is written in Python).  Yet to be
finished and ported to C++ code.

* Lots of refinements in code.  Approximately 2000 lines have been added since
the last attachment.

Comment 25 kyoshida 2005-09-23 14:51:42 UTC
I've uploaded a new snapshot to my website:

This snapshot solves a constrained linear model, but not a non-linear model yet.
 I've also made a binary UNO package for Linux for those who want to test out
the program.

This feature was also one of the Google Summer of Code tasks, but unfortunately
we didn't get anything out of it.  So I'm doing from where I left off before the

Comment 26 niklas.nebel 2005-09-23 18:19:58 UTC
I'm attaching a small example that doesn't seem to work with your snapshot (the
values in the file are what is claimed as the solution).

Also, I seem to get a crash instead of an error message if a model is infeasible
(an unhandled ModelInfeasible exception).

But it's great to see real progress here.
Comment 27 niklas.nebel 2005-09-23 18:21:22 UTC
Created attachment 29846 [details]
Example that doesn't work
Comment 28 kyoshida 2005-09-24 07:49:53 UTC
Thanks Niklas for your quick feedback!

Catching a ModelInfeasible exception was supposed to be fixed with that
snapshot, but it must've slipped.  It's fixed now.

The scenario you've attached did indeed fail.  Luckily I've pin-pointed the
problem during my test and fixed it.  (It was due to the lambda calculation
routine incorrectly disallowing a zero value.)

A new snapshot (rev. 71) is up on my website with the above two issues fixed.

Comment 29 frank 2005-11-25 10:10:44 UTC
*** Issue 56080 has been marked as a duplicate of this issue. ***
Comment 30 kyoshida 2005-12-12 04:10:28 UTC
Just to give you guys an update:

My current focus is to make my linear algorithm (simplex for those are familiar)
more robust.  Since my last announcement here I have made many changes to my
code, and my solver is a lot better shape now.  But there is still much work
ahead.  But hopefully, after making several changes to my linear algorithm to my
satisfaction, I will start working on adding a non-linear support.

As usual, a binary package is available for Linux platform from my website:

The latest is revision 101.

Comment 31 manens 2005-12-12 10:05:23 UTC
(warn: I didn't read the source code of the actual solver)

I was just asking myself if it may help if we use an external package such as
scipy.optimize (i am sure that there is a c++ version of this...):
(BSD license but it may change)

I may I miss something so feel free to comment.

Good work kohei !
Comment 32 kyoshida 2005-12-12 18:37:57 UTC
@manens: Thanks for the link.  Unfortunately, to use an external package it
needs to be submitted under JCA before I can read the code.  As I understand it,
we can not use BSD-licensed code because of its advertising clause.  But, if the
license is changed such that I could take a look at their implementation, I
would love to take a look for a good reference.

One interesting remark.  When I visited the link, I noticed that they used the
non-linear constrainted algorithm originally developed by Stephan Nash.  A while
ago I was contacted by his brother John Nash who is also in the operations
research field.  One of his advices for me was to take a look at his brother's
(S. Nash) publication as a reference for devising a constrained non-linear
algorithm, which I'm intending to do.

Comment 33 mayesk 2006-04-20 04:43:30 UTC
I'm looking for somewhere to be involved and, with a background in OR, thought
this might be the place to start.  First comment though is that it would be
better to use existing optimisation code.

From there
are three open source lp solvers:

    * CLP (linear) and SBB (integer), supervised by John Forrest. Current
versions are available under the Common Public License written by IBM
Corporation. They are part of the COIN-OR project which encompasses a variety of
software for operations research, especially optimization; COIN-OR was initially
sponsored by IBM but is now an independent non-profit organization.

    * GLPK (GNU Linear Programming Kit), supervised by Andrew Makhorin. Version
4.6 is available under the GNU General Public License, version 2 or higher. A
primal-dual interior point method is also provided. Input options include the
GNU MathProg language (a subset of AMPL).

    * lp_solve, supervised by by Kjell Eikland and Peter Notebaert. Version 5.1
is now available, under the GNU Lesser General Public License. Utilities are
provided for handling various input formats, including GLPK's MathProg modeling
language. Several alternative basis factorization packages can be used

GLPK and lp_solve both look pretty promising on the solver side, CLP looks a bit
Comment 34 kyoshida 2006-04-20 05:04:56 UTC
@mayesk : would you be interested in writing a hook for those libraries you
suggested?  I'll give you a pointer of course.  --Kohei
Comment 35 kyoshida 2006-04-20 05:08:17 UTC
Also not to forget the wiki page if you are interested.

Comment 36 harald.schilly 2006-04-20 16:15:36 UTC
@mayesk: i think a good solver is crucial for calc. an example of such
an integration of glpk and lp_solve for LP und QP is gnumeric. i suggest you
to have a look at their implementation:
Comment 37 kyoshida 2006-04-20 16:34:16 UTC
One important thing to comment: we can't use GPL'ed code.  While gnumeric's
solver is excellent it is a GPL'ed program.  This will also rule out GLPK as
it's GPL.

We could use LGPL'ed code, but such code would still have to be kept separate to
avoid licensing problem.  Please note that all code that needs to be integrated
into OO.o must be submitted under JCA.

I have already designed and developed a framework for solver facility that can
accommodate multiple algorithms, so I would advise extending it to add more
algorithms.  If someone is interested in using a 3rd party's optimization
library, try to hook it into the current framework.

If someone needs help to get started with the current framework, let me know so
that I can provide help.

Comment 38 kyoshida 2006-04-21 00:58:12 UTC
Created attachment 35881 [details]
patch set for scsolver
Comment 39 kyoshida 2006-04-21 01:29:37 UTC
I was planning to upload this patch set after I get one remaining stuff done,
but anyway...

Current status: the bounded simplex algorithm that I've been working on is
nearing completion, but still needs some work in the initial solution search
routine (a rather tough one, I might add).  So, my plan is to finish that up
first, then perhaps look at integrating lp_solve into the mix.  I have to admit
things are moving slowly these days because of my class work.  But once that
finishes in May I'll try to pick up speed to move it along further.

@all: I haven't been keeping up to date with documenting my code since there
have been nobody showing interest to help me (except for folks at Novell).  But
if there is any interest in giving me a helping hand, I'll be glad to put
together some how-to docs for any brave soul.

Right now, my solver is a part of ooo-build - the build maintained by Novell and
other distro maintainers.  Compiling my solver code involves compiling the whole
suite because we are now in the process of integrating it into the main code
base.  The initial integration work has already been done.  This unfortunately
means that setting it up for hacking solver won't be easy but I think this step
is necessary at this stage.

I don't periodically report my status here, but if anybody wants to keep track
of my activity, here is the ChangeLog that I always update.

For any Q's, just contact me.

Comment 40 kyoshida 2006-04-21 01:33:06 UTC
change issue type to PATCH, and change status to STARTED.
Comment 41 kyoshida 2006-04-25 03:00:03 UTC
Hi all,

Ok.  Here is my short-term plan.  Instead of trying to finish my on-going
simplex algorithm (which will potentially take a long time to finish), I will
prioritize integration of lp_solve into the current solver framework so that at
least OO.o users can have a decent-quality solver available.

If anybody is already familiar with lp_solve, I'll be glad to receive any
suggestions, development help etc.

Comment 42 kyoshida 2006-06-02 18:04:39 UTC

I have uploaded a new snapshot up on my website:

Note that, in this snapshot, you need to install two separate packages: and, or it will not function properly.

I haven't made a formal announcement in my blog yet due to time constraints
(which I will do shortly), but if you guys could try out this snapshot and give
me feedback I'd appreciate it.

The change since the last snapshot is minimal, but it now uses lp_solve as the
backend optimization engine.  So, you may have a better luck in solving some
complex models that my own algorithm could not.

Thanks guys,
Comment 43 onitake 2006-06-02 20:02:10 UTC
Now that OpenOffice 2 has finally made it natively to the Mac (NeoOffice 2 Alpha
is out), how about providing binary packages for that platform?
Building OOo (or Neo, for that matter) is an immensely tedious task not everyone
wants to go through...
I can't provide my support here, since my Mac would take far too long and I
don't have 40GB of spare HD storage.
Are UNO extensions even compatible with NeoOffice? How about Universal Binaries?
Comment 44 kyoshida 2006-06-02 20:36:43 UTC
onitake: are you volunteering for this?  

I can only build for Linux because that's all the time and resource (read:
hardware) I have available.  But if you are interested in trying this out please
do.  I'm just volunteering for this without receiving any external support or
fund.  So, any help you can provide, please do provide it.  Thanks.
Comment 45 kyoshida 2006-06-02 21:15:35 UTC
By the way, building ooo-build only takes around 3 to 5 GB of HD space, not
40GB.  In fact, the machine I used to use only had 20GB diskspace in total, but
I managed to build the whole suite and provide the binary package, just to give
you an idea.

Like I said, if you want to explore into Mac version, great.  If you don't, just
be patient until someone with time, resource and interest shows up and take on
the issue.
Comment 46 onitake 2006-06-03 10:17:27 UTC
I've built OOo on Linux before, thus I didn't believe it either...
But the NeoOffice developers say so on their build page:
(it's 20GB, actually, not 40)

Also, it seems there will be separate versions for PowerPC and Intel Macs. That
means, no Universal Binary of the Solver is needed.

What I'm asking myself, is there a way to only build the neccessary components
to create Uno plugins?
Comment 47 harald.schilly 2006-06-03 10:52:43 UTC
testing new version with OOo 2.0.2 (the version, which comes with ubuntu 6.06
... custom build for this debian flavour)
install: works, single button comes as a floating toolbar
testing: build a small example, nothing special. it crashed once while clicking
around but the second time it solved. it told me about a solution, but it only
calculated all to 0. 
i'll try another example, perhaps it will do some more then
Comment 48 kyoshida 2006-06-03 19:27:44 UTC
@onitake: please see the separate email I sent to you. :-)

@mysteron: Not good.  You used the stock OO.o that came with Ubuntu, correct? 
That version may already have my Solver preinstalled which may be causing
conflict.  Do you see "Tools > Solver" entry?  If yes, then it has my Solver

Can you send me the test case with your model saved on that document?  I'd like
to see if it's the component installation problem or something else.  Thanks.
Comment 49 harald.schilly 2006-06-03 20:28:26 UTC
well yes, the solver is installed. i've not seen it, nice.

i know the problem: i've entered integer values at the constraints. i changed it
to cell-references and now it works. i simply thought i can enter values in
those fields. at least there is no warning or explanation. 

in my opinion, those constraints should also work for ranges of cells compared
to a single value. in this ubuntu version it pops up a warning with an
incomplete message (warnung box should be two lines, but only one visible)

another problem: values in solver window should be saved in the document. in
present state (i talk about the ubuntu ooo version) they are only saved in the
running session, after reopening the document everything is forgotten.

but anyway. at least a start with much potential. 
Comment 50 kyoshida 2006-06-04 20:32:07 UTC
@mysteron: You've raised two issues:

1) direct RHS (right-hand-side) value in a constraint should just work.

I agree with this.  I'll work on this to get the fix in by the next snapshot. 
The fix shouldn't be too complicated.

2) values in solver window should be saved in the document.

That's what the Save and Load buttons are for (do you have these buttons in your
Ubuntu version?)  When you hit Save, your solver model gets stored as a metadata
in your document, but note that you still need to save your document to commit
it into the file.  Maybe a nice information dialog telling the user that he/she
still needs to save the document to permanently save the model would be a nice

Perhaps we can do it smarter by automatically loading the saved model into the
solver window when the window is opened for the first time.
Comment 51 niklas.nebel 2006-06-06 20:23:16 UTC
Actually, I get a crash (unhandled std::out_of_range) now with the
solver_error.ods from above. Other files seem to work well.

Doesn't lp_solve allow integer constraints? Making use of that capability
certainly seems easier than implementing it yourself. Also, the implicit
non-negative constraint can probably be dropped easily.
Comment 52 kyoshida 2006-06-06 20:30:37 UTC
nn: Oops.  I'll fix the unhandled out_of_range exception right away.  As to the
integer constraint and positive number constraint, I'll get those implemented as
part of the Options dialog work.  Thanks.  --Kohei
Comment 53 kyoshida 2006-06-07 03:52:57 UTC
I've uploaded newer versions that fixes the crash bug.  Both packages need to be
updated.  The crash occurred so frequently that I've removed the previous
version from my website. :/

Feedback & test appreciated.  --Kohei
Comment 54 kyoshida 2006-10-04 16:22:23 UTC
Just to let you all know, I'm in the process of upstreaming my code via cws as
we speak.  May take a little while due to my unfamiliarity with the upstreaming
process, but it'll happen sooner or later.

Comment 55 kyoshida 2006-10-05 04:00:30 UTC
adding dependency to this issue...
Comment 56 ace_dent 2007-03-15 16:22:03 UTC
*** Issue 74216 has been marked as a duplicate of this issue. ***
Comment 57 niklas.nebel 2007-05-23 11:40:16 UTC
User Experience requested only minor string changes
(, so we should
be able to get this into QA soon. Kohei, what's the current state of the
scsolver02 CWS?
Comment 58 kyoshida 2007-05-26 02:48:49 UTC
Sorry about the late response.  I'm a little swamped with tasks at the moment. 
I'll take another look at the cws hopefully soon and see if there are any
remaining issues.
Comment 59 niklas.nebel 2007-06-07 17:36:23 UTC
With all the noise that some people make around this not being integrated, it
seems we should try to finish this one before adding more oox details that still
need some time before integration anyway.
Comment 60 kyoshida 2007-06-08 11:38:45 UTC
There are currently three issues with it:

1) Localization - currently we use resource manager from tools that is not UNO.
 Since there is now a UNO localization API, it makes sense to use it instead, to
make it a complete UNO component.

2) Custom menu build issue - there is an issue with rebuilding the module when
--enable-scsolver is given.  It keeps appending the Solver menu item everytime
it is rebuilt.  I haven't figured out how to fix that one yet.  Needs more time.

3) Licensing - there has been a concern among several potential contributors to
the scsolver about licensing of this component.  It would be better if we could
submit this component as a pure LGPL instead of under the JCA, to make it easier
to accept more contributions.
Comment 61 niklas.nebel 2007-06-08 16:05:52 UTC
Non-JCA would mean it's not part of OOo, but rather a third-party component for
it (at least that's my understanding, someone correct me if I'm wrong). I'd very
much prefer to have it under JCA.

If the trick with tools resources works, I think we should leave it that way for
now, and change it later. I'd be happy to have almost anything integrated *now*,
so we can get this out of the second-class, ooo-build-only corner.
Comment 62 mmeeks 2007-06-11 10:17:59 UTC
> Non-JCA would mean it's not part of OOo, but rather a third-party component
> for it (at least that's my understanding, someone correct me if I'm wrong).

Sure - there are plenty of bits of OO.o that are not under JCA and yet are
included: berkeleydb, big chunk of mozilla (at one stage), stlport, icu etc.
wrt. LGPL pieces: libxml2, libwpd, libegg jump to mind: so there should be no
issue there: but I guess, well worth checking with Sun legal, and there is the
'external' process I suppose:
Comment 63 niklas.nebel 2007-06-11 16:39:24 UTC
mmeeks, the examples *are* third-party libraries, not stuff that we (OOo) are
doing ourselves.
Comment 64 kyoshida 2007-06-12 21:41:07 UTC
Non-JCA doesn't necessarily mean it's not part of OO.o.  In fact, it doesn't
really matter whether this piece is considered "external" or "part of OO.o", as
long as the functionality is provided with the OO.o.  Isn't that what matters

This Solver project has historically been a community effort - well, it's just
my own effort for 99.9% of the code.  And I'm a little concerned about the
possible overhead it might incur by making this too coupled with the main code
base (and the upstream development process, in particular).

I believe that, for the long term, we would benefit more by leaving this piece
external with a pure LGPL license, and use it as a means to encourage more
community participation.  We'll likely need a lot of help from those who are
specialized in this field to bring this piece to the next level, and I don't
think the current project structure is well optimized for that.

So, it would be great if someone could check with Sun legal if it's possible to
keep this code LGPL only, and integrate it as an external component.  I realize
there is no precedent for something like this, but trust me, it is worth the effort.
Comment 65 stx123 2007-10-01 15:08:47 UTC
Kohei, we would be happy to help you with the integration of your contribution
in the main code base following the project guidelines. This implies shared
ownership and licensing under LGPL. We are confident that this is the way the
collaboration can do well with the best support from all participants.
As this seems not to be an option for you we start to implement a solution
within the spreadsheet project. You are welcome to join this effort.
Comment 66 alex.thurgood 2007-10-03 15:47:26 UTC
Personally, I don't really see the difference in terms of licensing between this
functional module and the extensions which can also be licensed under the LGPL.
So might I ask Sun Legal, where does the problem lie ? Unless, of course, the
decision is one of a particular ownership strategy that Sun management has not
seen fit to divulge to the community ? As has been pointed out, there are
already other forms of licensing in parts of the code integrated within OOo,
under alternative permissive with certain restrictions licenses. Whilst I can
understand that having all the code "under one hat" so to speak, makes life a
hell of a lot easier for those who have to manage, sell, defend it, etc, we are
not exactly breaking new ground (in terms of code management) with a code
submission such as this, and indeed I would say again that is has been done
before, and could be done again. Obviously, this is not what is wanted by the
historical entity of the project.


And yes, I am a practising lawyer, and specialize in the field of intellectual

Comment 67 sajer 2007-10-06 23:39:34 UTC
Kohei made the right decision. We look forward to using his solver in a fork of OO.o and Sun. You failed in a spectacular and slow way. Goodbye. We
will tell the world about you.
Comment 68 mmeeks 2007-10-08 13:44:58 UTC
sajer - not sure who you are, but it's rather unfair & too early to judge
failure or success; we have a lot to be grateful to Sun for; and (at least)
Novell is committed to continuing working with OO.o; I'd encourage you to follow
our lead in that too :-)
Comment 69 frank 2007-10-09 09:13:00 UTC
*** Issue 82426 has been marked as a duplicate of this issue. ***
Comment 70 kyledeaner123 2007-10-13 21:17:39 UTC
send fix to i will be joining the admin. also all 
fixes should be e-mailed to me
Comment 71 niklas.nebel 2007-12-04 18:25:33 UTC
Target 3.0
Comment 72 niklas.nebel 2007-12-20 18:13:56 UTC
The new implementation, based on lpsolve, is on CWS "calcsolver".
Comment 73 niklas.nebel 2007-12-21 09:09:39 UTC
reassigning to QA for verification
Comment 74 frank 2008-02-05 13:03:27 UTC
Created attachment 51378 [details]
Comment 75 frank 2008-02-05 13:04:23 UTC
Created attachment 51379 [details]
Comment 76 frank 2008-02-05 13:05:08 UTC
Created attachment 51380 [details]
Comment 77 frank.loehmann 2008-02-05 14:01:00 UTC
Please find the spec here:
Comment 78 frank 2008-02-05 14:17:21 UTC
Found fixed on cws calcsolver using Solaris and Windows build
Comment 79 lohmaier 2008-08-06 00:12:58 UTC
reopen. Cellrange selection not as in the testspecification and not what the
user would expect. Only the targetcell and value selection work. All the other
range-selection fields don't work as expected:
They all insert a cell-range, not a single cell (despite only a single cell
being selected), and all ranges are in the form of $C$3:D4 (i.e. first part
absolute addressing, the second part is missing the $ - for a single-cell
selection the dialog would show $C$3:C3

So: Addressing-type is wrong, and it allows a range for the limiting conditions,
whereas a single-cell selection is to be expected.
Comment 80 lohmaier 2008-08-06 00:15:21 UTC
forgot: I tried with DEV300_m28 on linux and mac
Comment 81 frank 2008-08-06 09:23:58 UTC

this Issue is fixed as the Solver is implemented.

The strange references problem is Issue 92030 .

Comment 82 frank 2008-08-06 09:25:02 UTC
integrated in OOo3.o
Comment 83 Unknown 2010-07-11 23:42:26 UTC
Created attachment 70502
Comment 84 Unknown 2010-08-24 12:02:05 UTC
Created attachment 71271
Comment 85 Unknown 2010-08-25 12:32:43 UTC
Created attachment 71330