Apache OpenOffice (AOO) Bugzilla – Issue 52088
Alpha Index shows double entries w/o page ##
Last modified: 2017-05-20 10:22:25 UTC
found in OOo 1.9.113 on Windows 2003, word processor When an index entry is added, and a sub-entry is added to this entry, the first-level-entry gets displayed two times, like this: Freude 1f. Freude rüberlächeln 2 Zeilen 1 Zeilen Zeilenbreite 1 But in fact, these double entries should not be there, as they make no sense. steps are the following: - enter text.... - add an Alphabetical Index: Insert|Indexes and Tables|Indexes and Tables->Alphabetical Index (no special settings needed there) - mark a word, (Freude) - Insert|Indexes and Tables|Entry - leave the selected word as is, 1rst key empty - add another word like this (rüberlächeln), but 1rst key os "Freude" - then add another entry: another "Freude", wit 1rst key empty - update the Index - there you should see it, its like in the document which' url is in this report.
Reassigned to ES.
just found a possibly useful additional information: it seems that the issue was already found here: http://supportforum.sun.com/staroffice/index.php?t=msg&goto=5998&rid=0 And other Additions: -the problem occurs also in OOo 1.1.x and Staroffice7 -it seems also to be present on Linux, possibly its a general issue?
ES->AMA: When a word is used as entry and key in an alphabetical index, it appears 2 times in the index and the key doesn't show any page number. 1) This is not the way indexes are built in the real life: NOT: Colors....................2 Colors Blue...................3 yellow................4 BUT: Colors....................2 Blue...................3 yellow................4 2) MS Word does evalute this correctly 3) It's not a regression and we need to think about it with UserEx (FL). Thus, redefining as ENHANCEMENT.
Set target to OOo Later because it's not on our agenda at the moment. Added FL to cc to involve UserEx
Created attachment 48844 [details] Patch for this issue
I've attached a patch for this issue. The issue depends on which way round the index marks are. If you have an index mark with no key first, then use the text from that mark as the key for a second index mark all is well. However if you do it the other way round you get the duplicate entry. This is because SwTOXBaseSection::GetKeyRange won't find the existing entry for the primary key if it's a proper index entry rather than a dummy custom entry. This patch removes the condition that the existing entry be a custom entry fixing the problem. Sorry for not explaining it better - test it and you will see it works.
This has been open for over three years and I even submitted a patch but there has been no activity since then. How do I get this fixed?
I just noticed this is marked ENHANCEMENT. It's actually a BUG. As I said in my comment, the entries are merged correctly if you define the index marks one way round, but not if you define them the other way round. The index marks should be treated the same regardless of which way round you define them so it's definitely a bug.
Target changed to 3.x, issue type changed to Patch, reassigned to me
Hi, Some considerations about #52088 1. IMHO,It's a bug :-) 2. The Issue 104107 is a duplicate (sub-entry=key)? 3. Cambridge University Press vs. OpenOffice.org? ;-) Please, see page 3 of the following papers http://authornet.cambridge.org/information/productionguide/hss/XML_indexing_v2.pdf http://authornet.cambridge.org/information/productionguide/hss/Guide%20on%20Making%20an%20Index.pdf Kind regards D.L. ------- Off topic ------- Alphabetical index of OOo Writer unfortunately has more than a problem. The following are only some of the essential functions required for effective indexing. * Cross-referencing index entries (Issue 104691) * Formatting to specific entries (Issue 106199) * "Skips" footnotes/endnotes (Issue 32392) * More alphabetical index (Issue 6401) * Manual Page-range (Issue 94565) * Delete all index entries (Issue 20599) * etc... In some cases are only small changes, but that would increase greatly the capabilities of the index tools. These features are not optional. When you write an alphabetical index there are rules to follow. At least in the fields of law and humanities, a good index is essential! Might be a good idea to ask some advice to a professional indexer. The "our" competitor - MsWord - does not have these limitations (cf. Word97!). I'm convinced that improving the Indexing Tools - along with the bibliographic project (OOoBib) - OOo Writer could become an excellent word processor for scholars and technical writers. References. http://www.allegrotechindexing.com/articles.htm http://www.asindexing.org/site/Mauer_EmbeddedIndexing.pdf http://www.bayside-indexing.com/tools.pdf http://taxonomist.tripod.com/indexing/wordflags.html http://taxonomist.tripod.com/indexing/wordproblems.html http://www.stcwdc.org/PDF/indexing_oct01.pdf inter alia http://www.allegrotechindexing.com/indexingtools.pdf
Patch applied in cws os144
Reassigned for verification
Verified in CWS os144.