Apache OpenOffice (AOO) Bugzilla – Issue 77259
RPT: Misleading error message when no report designer extension is installed
Last modified: 2007-08-19 05:02:42 UTC
Attempting to open Report Designer generated report with a version of OOo that does not support the Report Designer displays an error box saying only: Document Designer_1 Can not be opened! This makes it appear to a user that something is broken with either their installation of OOo or the file itself, when neither is the case. The user should be presented with a warning box, not an error box stating that this file requires use of OOo version 2.x and the Report Designer extension. You can reproduce this by downloading the attached file ExerciseLog_RPT and opening it under any version of OOo up to 2.3m_211. It was tested under 2.3m_211 on XP and 2.0.4 on Ubuntu.
Created attachment 45059 [details] Example database
Added keywords
targeting to OOo 2.x
Please take care for this one. Thanks.
The Report Designer iTeam decided that this issue is a show stopper for the release of the report designer. Targeting to 2.3, thus.
started
extending summary
*** Issue 77264 has been marked as a duplicate of this issue. ***
fixed. Now if no extension is installed, a message box opens and it is possible to click on 'download...' button which opens a browser.
fs-> msc: please verify in CWS oj14 build 0.4.0
verified in CWS oj14 version 0.4.0
Hi, I see you closed the issue 77264 as a duplicate of this one. OK. But just FYI, they where not intended to be even close to the same. I actually half expected you to close this issue as INVALID. This issue was meant to deal with backward compatibility. What happens when I create a Base file in version 2.3 and this includes report designer reports. The file is then opened on a machine with version 2.2. The report is not available, and there is nothing to tell the user why it is not. Given the policy to release NEW versions only, and leave the folks with older versions behind, therefore the belief this might be an INVALID. The fix put into the code does indeed address issue 77264 however, so as I say...OK
This wasn't clear to us, obviously :) Indeed, there's no chance to enhance older versions to recognize that the reports are "too new" - and since we forgot to add respective code in the first place, we would in fact have resolved such an issue as WONTFIX or INVALID.
I should say, I am not in the habit of entering issues I believe are invalid, on purpose. In this case I entered it because IMO this is going to come up in a support context. Not all 'fixes' are code based in other words and in this case it is a documentation issue I think.
closing