[Upstream] Using numbers with RTL text breaks underline

To reproduce:
-Open LibreOffice Writer
-Write some underlined text in an RTL language(tested Hebrew and Arabic)
-Write a number(still in the same underline)
Result: the underline breaks.
This does not happen in English.

To reproduce:
-Open LibreOffice Writer
-Write some underlined text in an RTL language(tested Hebrew and Arabic)
-Write a number(still in the same underline)
Result: the underline breaks.
This does not happen in English.

Shimi Chen, could you please attach a Writer document that demonstrates this problem?

Created attachment 45268
Some underlined Hebrew text with a number.

The underline is broken before each number.

Shimi Chen, could you please attach a Writer document that demonstrates this problem?

Created attachment 45268
Some underlined Hebrew text with a number.

The underline is broken before each number.

This must be a kind of off-by-one error ;-) When I zoom it, it is always one pixel thick; and in some zoom levels the gap disappears completely...

This must be a kind of off-by-one error ;-) When I zoom it, it is always one pixel thick; and in some zoom levels the gap disappears completely...

I would like to point out that it's not just a zoom issue. Even if the interface is set to a zoom level that does not break the underline, when the document is printed the underline is always broken, which leads to an unprofessional looking documents.

I would like to point out that it's not just a zoom issue. Even if the interface is set to a zoom level that does not break the underline, when the document is printed the underline is always broken, which leads to an unprofessional looking documents.

[This is an automated message.]
This bug was filed before the changes to Bugzilla on 2011-10-16. Thus it
started right out as NEW without ever being explicitly confirmed. The bug is
changed to state NEEDINFO for this reason. To move this bug from NEEDINFO back
to NEW please check if the bug still persists with the 3.5.0 beta1 or beta2 prereleases.
Details on how to test the 3.5.0 beta1 can be found at:
http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/QA/BugHunting_Session_3.5.0.-1

more detail on this bulk operation: http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/RFC-Operation-Spamzilla-tp3607474p3607474.html

[This is an automated message.]
This bug was filed before the changes to Bugzilla on 2011-10-16. Thus it
started right out as NEW without ever being explicitly confirmed. The bug is
changed to state NEEDINFO for this reason. To move this bug from NEEDINFO back
to NEW please check if the bug still persists with the 3.5.0 beta1 or beta2 prereleases.
Details on how to test the 3.5.0 beta1 can be found at:
http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/QA/BugHunting_Session_3.5.0.-1

more detail on this bulk operation: http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/RFC-Operation-Spamzilla-tp3607474p3607474.html

Still happens in 3.5.0 beta 2, changing to status NEW.

Still happens in 3.5.0 beta 2, changing to status NEW.

still broken in 3.6.4.3

still broken in 3.6.4.3

Abdulaziz: I propose you to keep on the discussion you began on dev mailing list: http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/crash-in-master-td4070134.html
here.

So, here the information you brought:
-you work under linux Ubuntu.
-you built from source (last git pull in 13 Aug)
-new LO profile.

Could you try to retrieve a backtrace by following this link: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/QA/BugReport/Debug_Information#GNU.2FLinux:_How_to_get_a_backtrace ?
Ideally, it could be very useful to have all debug in console + symbols in bt, could you add in your autogen.inpu, if not already there this:
--enable-dbgutil
(you'll need to run "make clean" and it'll take more space but it may worth it).

Khaled: I thought you might be interested in this tracker so I put you on cc.

Abdulaziz: I propose you to keep on the discussion you began on dev mailing list: http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/crash-in-master-td4070134.html
here.

So, here the information you brought:
-you work under linux Ubuntu.
-you built from source (last git pull in 13 Aug)
-new LO profile.

Could you try to retrieve a backtrace by following this link: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/QA/BugReport/Debug_Information#GNU.2FLinux:_How_to_get_a_backtrace ?
Ideally, it could be very useful to have all debug in console + symbols in bt, could you add in your autogen.inpu, if not already there this:
--enable-dbgutil
(you'll need to run "make clean" and it'll take more space but it may worth it).

Khaled: I thought you might be interested in this tracker so I put you on cc.

Seeing this bug with Win7 on X86-64, with v. 4.1.2.3 release.

I've increased the severity based on Shimi's comment #4.

Seeing this bug with Win7 on X86-64, with v. 4.1.2.3 release.

I've increased the severity based on Shimi's comment #4.

 Julien Nabet :
see this https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=69510

 Julien Nabet :
see this https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=69510

** Please read this message in its entirety before responding **

To make sure we're focusing on the bugs that affect our users today, LibreOffice QA is asking bug reporters and confirmers to retest open, confirmed bugs which have not been touched for over a year.

There have been thousands of bug fixes and commits since anyone checked on this bug report. During that time, it's possible that the bug has been fixed, or the details of the problem have changed. We'd really appreciate your help in getting confirmation that the bug is still present.

If you have time, please do the following:

   *Test to see if the bug is still present on a currently supported version of LibreOffice (4.4.1 or later)
   https://www.libreoffice.org/download/

   *If the bug is present, please leave a comment that includes the version of LibreOffice and your operating system, and any changes you see in the bug behavior

   *If the bug is NOT present, please set the bug's Status field to RESOLVED-WORKSFORME and leave a short comment that includes your version of LibreOffice and Operating System

Please DO NOT

   *Update the version field
   *Reply via email (please reply directly on the bug tracker)
   *Set the bug's Status field to RESOLVED - FIXED (this status has a particular meaning that is not appropriate in this case)

If you want to do more to help you can test to see if your issue is a REGRESSION. To do so:

1. Download and install oldest version of LibreOffice (usually 3.3 unless your bug pertains to a feature added after 3.3)

http://downloadarchive.documentfoundation.org/libreoffice/old/

2. Test your bug
3. Leave a comment with your results.
4a. If the bug was present with 3.3 - set version to "inherited from OOo";
4b. If the bug was not present in 3.3 - add "regression" to keyword

Feel free to come ask questions or to say hello in our QA chat: http://webchat.freenode.net/?channels=libreoffice-qa

Thank you for your help!

-- The LibreOffice QA Team This NEW Message was generated on: 2015-04-01

Using LibreOffice 4.4.1.2 Arch Linux build-2.
Underline still breaks as described in original report.
However, the break seems now to be smaller than the time it was reported. It seems hardly noticeable when the document is printed but still appears vividly inside Writer.

Also break in underluned when using non-break space.
LO: 4.4.3.2
ID: 88805f81e9fe61362df02b9941de8e38a9b5fd16
Locale: ru_RU
Win 8.1 x64

** Please read this message in its entirety before responding **

To make sure we're focusing on the bugs that affect our users today, LibreOffice QA is asking bug reporters and confirmers to retest open, confirmed bugs which have not been touched for over a year.

There have been thousands of bug fixes and commits since anyone checked on this bug report. During that time, it's possible that the bug has been fixed, or the details of the problem have changed. We'd really appreciate your help in getting confirmation that the bug is still present.

If you have time, please do the following:

Test to see if the bug is still present on a currently supported version of LibreOffice
(5.1.5 or 5.2.1 https://www.libreoffice.org/download/

If the bug is present, please leave a comment that includes the version of LibreOffice and
your operating system, and any changes you see in the bug behavior

If the bug is NOT present, please set the bug's Status field to RESOLVED-WORKSFORME and leave
a short comment that includes your version of LibreOffice and Operating System

Please DO NOT

Update the version field
Reply via email (please reply directly on the bug tracker)
Set the bug's Status field to RESOLVED - FIXED (this status has a particular meaning that is not
appropriate in this case)

If you want to do more to help you can test to see if your issue is a REGRESSION. To do so:
1. Download and install oldest version of LibreOffice (usually 3.3 unless your bug pertains to a feature added after 3.3)

http://downloadarchive.documentfoundation.org/libreoffice/old/

2. Test your bug
3. Leave a comment with your results.
4a. If the bug was present with 3.3 - set version to "inherited from OOo";
4b. If the bug was not present in 3.3 - add "regression" to keyword

Feel free to come ask questions or to say hello in our QA chat: http://webchat.freenode.net/?channels=libreoffice-qa

Thank you for helping us make LibreOffice even better for everyone!

Warm Regards,
QA Team

MassPing-UntouchedBug-20160920

Still an issue.

Still happens in:

Version: 5.4.2.2.0+
Build ID: 1:5.4.2-3~bpo9+1
CPU threads: 8; OS: Linux 4.9; UI render: default; VCL: gtk2;
Locale: en-US (en_US.utf8); Calc: group

OS: Debian 64bit Stretch (Debian 9.2, with some backported packages)

Seeing this with LO 6.0.2.1 on GNU/Linux.

However, the manifestation is slightly different: I see breaks in the underlining: between בשפת and RTL, between מספר and 8, between וגם and 7 - but I DON'T see a break between מספר and 12, nor after the 12.

Please also post a PDF of the incorrect rendering to compare against.

Created attachment 144948
Incorrect rendering with LO 6.1.1.2

Posting a rendering with LO 6.1.1.2 build 5d19a1bfa650b796764388cd8b33a5af1f5baa1b - as per the description in my earlier comment.

(so, obviously, the bug still manifests with 6.1.1.2)

Dear Shimi Chen,

To make sure we're focusing on the bugs that affect our users today, LibreOffice QA is asking bug reporters and confirmers to retest open, confirmed bugs which have not been touched for over a year.

There have been thousands of bug fixes and commits since anyone checked on this bug report. During that time, it's possible that the bug has been fixed, or the details of the problem have changed. We'd really appreciate your help in getting confirmation that the bug is still present.

If you have time, please do the following:

Test to see if the bug is still present with the latest version of LibreOffice from https://www.libreoffice.org/download/

If the bug is present, please leave a comment that includes the information from Help - About LibreOffice.

If the bug is NOT present, please set the bug's Status field to RESOLVED-WORKSFORME and leave a comment that includes the information from Help - About LibreOffice.

Please DO NOT

Update the version field
Reply via email (please reply directly on the bug tracker)
Set the bug's Status field to RESOLVED - FIXED (this status has a particular meaning that is not
appropriate in this case)

If you want to do more to help you can test to see if your issue is a REGRESSION. To do so:
1. Download and install oldest version of LibreOffice (usually 3.3 unless your bug pertains to a feature added after 3.3) from http://downloadarchive.documentfoundation.org/libreoffice/old/

2. Test your bug
3. Leave a comment with your results.
4a. If the bug was present with 3.3 - set version to 'inherited from OOo';
4b. If the bug was not present in 3.3 - add 'regression' to keyword

Feel free to come ask questions or to say hello in our QA chat: https://kiwiirc.com/nextclient/irc.freenode.net/#libreoffice-qa

Thank you for helping us make LibreOffice even better for everyone!

Warm Regards,
QA Team

MassPing-UntouchedBug

Still seeing this issue manifest with:

Version: 6.4.0.3
Build ID: b0a288ab3d2d4774cb44b62f04d5d28733ac6df8
CPU threads: 4; OS: Linux 5.2; UI render: default; VCL: gtk3;
Locale: he-IL (en_IL); UI-Language: en-US

However! Different fonts present somewhat different behavior, in the sense that not all breaks appear. Specifically, if you change the font in attachment 45268 (Simchi Chen's attachment from 2011) to David CLM, the break before the number 12 is gone.

Dear Shimi Chen,

To make sure we're focusing on the bugs that affect our users today, LibreOffice QA is asking bug reporters and confirmers to retest open, confirmed bugs which have not been touched for over a year.

There have been thousands of bug fixes and commits since anyone checked on this bug report. During that time, it's possible that the bug has been fixed, or the details of the problem have changed. We'd really appreciate your help in getting confirmation that the bug is still present.

If you have time, please do the following:

Test to see if the bug is still present with the latest version of LibreOffice from https://www.libreoffice.org/download/

If the bug is present, please leave a comment that includes the information from Help - About LibreOffice.

If the bug is NOT present, please set the bug's Status field to RESOLVED-WORKSFORME and leave a comment that includes the information from Help - About LibreOffice.

Please DO NOT

Update the version field
Reply via email (please reply directly on the bug tracker)
Set the bug's Status field to RESOLVED - FIXED (this status has a particular meaning that is not
appropriate in this case)

If you want to do more to help you can test to see if your issue is a REGRESSION. To do so:
1. Download and install oldest version of LibreOffice (usually 3.3 unless your bug pertains to a feature added after 3.3) from https://downloadarchive.documentfoundation.org/libreoffice/old/

2. Test your bug
3. Leave a comment with your results.
4a. If the bug was present with 3.3 - set version to 'inherited from OOo';
4b. If the bug was not present in 3.3 - add 'regression' to keyword

Feel free to come ask questions or to say hello in our QA chat: https://web.libera.chat/?settings=#libreoffice-qa

Thank you for helping us make LibreOffice even better for everyone!

Warm Regards,
QA Team

MassPing-UntouchedBug

Still breaking the underline at numbers in a recent build:

Version: 7.5.0.0.alpha1+ (X86_64) / LibreOffice Community
Build ID: 2b093d27b7e6f231512920f20089fcac291b021f
CPU threads: 8; OS: Linux 5.15; UI render: default; VCL: gtk3
Locale: en-AU (en_AU.UTF-8); UI: en-US
Calc: threaded

*** Bug 155623 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

This seems to be a more general issue, if one mixes RTL with LTR text or CTL with Asian or Latin, there will be a gap. My guess when the text is split into different portions the underline can be a little bit short (probably because of rounding).

(In reply to خالد حسني from comment #25)
> This seems to be a more general issue, if one mixes RTL with LTR text or CTL
> with Asian or Latin, there will be a gap. My guess when the text is split
> into different portions the underline can be a little bit short (probably
> because of rounding).
Might be the case, because size of the gap changes in different zoom levels, and it is something like one pixel or so.

(In reply to خالد حسني from comment #24)
> *** Bug 155623 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
I think the above bug is different, because the gap is much bigger compared to this one, and it would be hard to say that is because of rounding.

(In reply to Hossein from comment #26)
> (In reply to خالد حسني from comment #25)
> > This seems to be a more general issue, if one mixes RTL with LTR text or CTL
> > with Asian or Latin, there will be a gap. My guess when the text is split
> > into different portions the underline can be a little bit short (probably
> > because of rounding).
> Might be the case, because size of the gap changes in different zoom levels,
> and it is something like one pixel or so.

Indeed.

> (In reply to خالد حسني from comment #24)
> > *** Bug 155623 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
> I think the above bug is different, because the gap is much bigger compared
> to this one, and it would be hard to say that is because of rounding.

You are right! I opened the file again and it looks very different than what I saw when I closed as duplicated. I wonder if I opened a different file by mistake.

*** Bug 103643 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

*** Bug 77279 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***