Issue 36611 - Heading numbering in conditional/hidden sections is still counted
Summary: Heading numbering in conditional/hidden sections is still counted
Alias: None
Product: Writer
Classification: Application
Component: viewing (show other issues)
Version: OOo 1.1.3
Hardware: PC Windows XP
: P3 Trivial with 15 votes (vote)
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: AOO issues mailing list
QA Contact:
Keywords: numbering
Depends on:
Reported: 2004-11-03 15:43 UTC by cjyrkama
Modified: 2017-05-20 11:15 UTC (History)
4 users (show)

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

File contains an example of the problem - there are 3 sections and one is hidden because the condition is met, however, the third section is numbered "3." when it should be "2.". (5.98 KB, application/vnd.sun.xml.writer)
2004-11-03 16:08 UTC, cjyrkama
no flags Details
mentioned document (7.84 KB, application/vnd.sun.xml.writer)
2005-01-03 14:04 UTC, michael.ruess
no flags Details

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this issue.
Description cjyrkama 2004-11-03 15:43:13 UTC
Refer to existing (closed) issue 14211.  There seems to be a regression in 
1.1.3.  When a section is hidden because a condition is met, then the 
subsequent section heading number is not updated to reflect the fact that the 
previous section is missing.
I can send a sample if necessary.
Comment 1 cjyrkama 2004-11-03 16:08:28 UTC
Created attachment 18886 [details]
File contains an example of the problem - there are 3 sections and one is hidden because the condition is met, however, the third section is numbered "3." when it should be "2.".
Comment 2 jbleijenbergh 2004-12-30 22:58:09 UTC
This still seems to be here in 1.9.m65. Is this a bug, in other words, shouldn't
the app count all sections both visible and invisible?
Comment 3 michael.ruess 2005-01-03 14:02:22 UTC
MRU->HBRINKM: it is not a regreession, problem was the same in OO 1.1.x.
Outlined paragraphs are also taken in mind when they are in a hidden section.
See my attachment.
Comment 4 michael.ruess 2005-01-03 14:04:43 UTC
Created attachment 20987 [details]
mentioned document
Comment 5 openoffice 2005-01-05 09:18:17 UTC
target set
Comment 6 frank.meies 2005-01-07 10:16:15 UTC
FME: Due to our lack of resources, I'll change the target to 'OOo Later'. A
perfect solution would be to have an option "consider hidden paragraphs for
numbering". Not to consider hidden paragraphs would be a nice feature, on the
other hand Word does not update the numbering if a paragraph is hidden.
Therefore this should be optional.
Comment 7 wayfarer3130 2005-04-19 18:53:40 UTC
Just because Word does this wrong, doesn't mean that Open Office also should do
this wrong.  Note that Latex/Tex does this RIGHT.
However - I agree, it would be nice to have an option on a per-document basis
whether to include or exclude the conditional numbering.
Comment 8 chennecke 2008-09-19 12:32:06 UTC
Actually, this issue affects *any* numbering inside a hidden section, not just
headers but also ordered lists etc.

This really should be fixed as it makes managing several versions of a text in
one file impossible.
Comment 9 chennecke 2008-09-19 12:35:10 UTC
This issue still exists in OOo 2.4.1 and 3.0rc1.
Comment 10 openoffice 2008-09-19 16:55:12 UTC
Numbering is now handled by OD.
Comment 11 gghh 2009-06-13 22:16:34 UTC
Problem still exist in DEV300m50.
Problem exists by "numbered lists" and "Outline Numbering".
Comment 12 viralanomaly 2009-09-10 22:01:53 UTC
It would be very helpful for us to have this fixed.  Is there a recommended way
to help this get more priority?
Comment 13 jr 2009-10-18 20:05:34 UTC
setting keyword "numbering"
Comment 14 matnieuw 2010-02-04 08:31:25 UTC
Is there any schedule to get this fixed? This is one of the issues preventing
doing documents in OO instead of Word (with external macros from LiveLinx) here.
Comment 15 Oliver-Rainer Wittmann 2010-02-05 09:27:53 UTC
Currently, there exists no schedule for the fix of this issue.
But, I am adjusting its target to "OOo 3.x" expressing the will to get it fixed
in one of the next releases.
Comment 16 Marcus 2017-05-20 11:15:44 UTC
Reset assigne to the default "".