Issue 18195 - Moving Table Rows in Writer With Drag/Drop Does Not Work Properly
Summary: Moving Table Rows in Writer With Drag/Drop Does Not Work Properly
Status: CLOSED DUPLICATE of issue 13645
Alias: None
Product: Writer
Classification: Application
Component: ui (show other issues)
Version: OOo 1.1 RC
Hardware: PC Windows 2000
: P3 Trivial with 1 vote (vote)
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: bettina.haberer
QA Contact: issues@sw
Keywords: oooqa
Depends on:
Reported: 2003-08-13 17:54 UTC by jcmonty
Modified: 2004-12-26 19:36 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

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


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this issue.
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 that´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 isn´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
closing duplicate.