Apache OpenOffice (AOO) Bugzilla – Issue 103677
Modified formula in remote cells after an import from Excel 2003 (.XLS)
Last modified: 2009-07-26 12:39:01 UTC
Hello, I've noticed this bug a long time ago (for sure in 3.0.x). Today, I take a strong example to help describing it. It happens when you open a binary 2003 XLS file - some remote cells have their references in formula changed (shifted a lot to the right in fact). Here you will find 2 files - first is a OOO 3.1 Calc (Excel_formula_import.xls) file exported to a Excel file (for convenience because same trouble arises also with a "fresh" Excel file). I've written back after one modification with Excel 2003 to a second file (Excel_formula_import_in_OOO.xls). So, those two files should be similar - they are almost ... here is the catch with Excel (true formula in cell) compared to OOO (false formula in cell) : Example 1 : EW6 (=N6 OK) compared to imported EW6 (=JJ6 NOK) Example 2 : FA6 (=M6+N6 OK) compared to imported FA6 (=JI6+JJ6 NOK) Hope this will help finding an issue because when you have a large file with a lot of columns, it is quite tricky to find what is wrong. Ludovic (Belgium)
Created attachment 63657 [details] Binary Excel 2003 file (.XLS) which has example of trouble in remote formula
Created attachment 63658 [details] Original file exported from OOO 3.1 with right formula
Can reproduce it in DEV300m52 on WinXP. Open the document Excel_formula_import_in_OOO.xls with OOo, FA6 = JI6+JJ6 EW6 = JJ6 But if open the document Excel_formula_import_in_OOO.xls with MS office, FA6 = M6+N6 EW6 = N6
As described by amy2008 - we incorrectly import some cells, specifically EW6 and FA6. This is regression as 2.4.1 imports those cells correctly. I think this issue deserves P2. Please consider for 3.1.1. Ludovic, thanks a lot for your report!
Can also reproduce it in OOO300m9 Build 9358 (3.0.0) on Windows XP Results as per amy2008 Could someone with MSExcel 2003 confirm that "Excel_formula_import_in_OOO.xls" is correct in excel?
can also confirm both files import correctly in 2.3.1
It's a duplicate. *** This issue has been marked as a duplicate of 95256 ***
closing duplicate