Issue 61610 - document recovery (cras reporter) needs to be more flexible: select files to be recovered, remove files from recovering them
Summary: document recovery (cras reporter) needs to be more flexible: select files to ...
Status: CONFIRMED
Alias: None
Product: General
Classification: Code
Component: ui (show other issues)
Version: OOo 2.0
Hardware: PC All
: P3 Trivial with 4 votes (vote)
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: AOO issues mailing list
QA Contact:
URL:
Keywords: oooqa
: 63063 75945 (view as issue list)
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2006-02-04 18:05 UTC by jwilliamcupp
Modified: 2013-02-07 22:32 UTC (History)
3 users (show)

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

Attachments
Add an attachment (proposed patch, testcase, etc.)

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this issue.
Description jwilliamcupp 2006-02-04 18:05:43 UTC 
When OOo crashes, works in progress are saved for later recovery.  So far, fine.

But when OOo is subsequently launched any documents saved previously are 
attempted to be recovered.  Normally, this is what one wants to have occur.

However, I deleted a document so now recovery "fails" each time ... and each 
time I launch OOo is goes back through the recovery process in order to look for 
a docuement that it thinks needs recovered ... but which in fact no longer 
exists.

On the recovery page there needs to be a technique to manually override this, 
such as marked a not-yet-recovered document to "just forget about it."
Comment 1 lars 2006-03-12 14:34:23 UTC 
confirming behaviour; additionally when a deleted file gets restored OOo still 
attempts recovery but says recovery faiuls.
According to http://qa.openoffice.org/issue_handling/workflowcharts/
RFE_issues_by_QA.sxd I reassign this issue to requirements and set the status 
to New
Comment 2 lars 2006-03-12 14:34:47 UTC 
*** Issue 63063 has been marked as a duplicate of this issue. ***
Comment 3 Mechtilde 2008-05-09 18:41:29 UTC 
*** Issue 75945 has been marked as a duplicate of this issue. ***