Issue 101998 - Update loses dictionary
Summary: Update loses dictionary
Alias: None
Product: Writer
Classification: Application
Component: editing (show other issues)
Version: OOO310m9
Hardware: PC (x86_64) Linux, all
: P3 Trivial (vote)
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: writerneedsconfirm
QA Contact: issues@sw
Keywords: needmoreinfo, oooqa
Depends on:
Reported: 2009-05-17 08:39 UTC by mhrichter
Modified: 2009-07-27 23:00 UTC (History)
3 users (show)

See Also:
Issue Type: DEFECT
Latest Confirmation in: ---
Developer Difficulty: ---

Copy of original file with problem showing on page 24, bottom. (9.49 MB, application/vnd.oasis.opendocument.text)
2009-07-27 20:38 UTC, mhrichter
no flags Details
Page 24 while file is loading (165.28 KB, image/png)
2009-07-27 21:35 UTC, mhrichter
no flags Details
Page 24 after the file loading is complete (shows the defect) (183.17 KB, image/png)
2009-07-27 21:36 UTC, mhrichter
no flags Details

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this issue.
Description mhrichter 2009-05-17 08:39:04 UTC
I had an extensive set of dictionary additions (in the standard dictionary -
yes), and when I updated from 2.4.1 to 3.0, they were all lost and I had to
start over.  The same thing just happened when I updated from 3.0 to 3.1.

It would be MUCH nicer if you either a) allowed an updating user to determine
whether or not to keep an older, modified dictionary or b) made the standard
dictionary read-only (which makes sense) and make updating a custom dictionary
1) the default when adding words during a spell check or 2) list all
dictionaries in the spell check 'which dictionary to update' panel such that a
single click is all that's needed instead of the current (and long running) 2

I believe that it is a bug to overwrite any user modifications without any
chance of saving them.
Comment 1 thomas.lange 2009-05-18 08:51:16 UTC
Is it only the 'standard' dictionary that gets lost? How about other
user-dictionaries created by yourself?
Comment 2 mhrichter 2009-05-18 19:00:02 UTC
I've never created my own dictionaries (until now) - always modified the
standard one - mostly to add words that should be there anyway but weren't, for
whatever reason (unusual words, missed plurals, missing abbreviations, etc.).

I noticed, though, that it is strangely selective - some of my updates were in
the "new" standard dictionary, some were not, and I'm not sure what the
difference is/was.

I'm now using my own dictionary for my added words that aren't normal parts of
the language (names, etc.).
Comment 3 eric.savary 2009-05-19 09:13:57 UTC
Can you remember which words are missing for sure and list them here so that we
can try to recreate the problem?
Have you an idea of how many words (approximately... rather 10, 100, 10.000) you
added to the dictionary?
Comment 4 eric.savary 2009-05-25 16:03:49 UTC
Feel free to reopen if you find information which can help us to reproduce the

By the way: it is not clear what you mean with "update". AFAIK there is no
*update* mechanism from 2.x -> 3.0. If you mean you have *also installed* 3.0,
then your dictionary should be in in the 2 directory in your user
Comment 5 eric.savary 2009-05-25 16:04:28 UTC
Comment 6 mhrichter 2009-07-27 20:38:19 UTC
Created attachment 63808 [details]
Copy of original file with problem showing on page 24, bottom.
Comment 7 mhrichter 2009-07-27 21:35:15 UTC
Created attachment 63809 [details]
Page 24 while file is loading
Comment 8 mhrichter 2009-07-27 21:36:07 UTC
Created attachment 63810 [details]
Page 24 after the file loading is complete (shows the defect)
Comment 9 mhrichter 2009-07-27 21:37:02 UTC
Sorry about the size of the file - it's 9MB+.
Comment 10 mhrichter 2009-07-27 21:45:36 UTC
Oops - I don't know how I did this, but I attached three files here that were
for issue 101122 (I think I followed the wrong link when the query showed this
one as the next one, instead of using the "go back to" link).

I'm resolving this one (again), but let me know if you want me to re-attach the
three attachments to 101122 or leave them here (i.e., if you can move them...).

Comment 11 eric.savary 2009-07-27 23:00:49 UTC