Sigil-0.4.905 (Windows) loses text

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Installed Sigil-0.4.905-Windows-Setup.exe

1. Open the attached file.
2. Highlight some text.
3. Click on the code view button.

The highlighted text is missing

Original issue reported on code.google.com by markrpro...@gmail.com on 9 Jan 2012 at 12:41

Attachments:

• loser4.epub

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Another manifestation of this bug:
- In BV put the cursor between two letters e.g. between d and f in:
<p>asdf</p>
- Switch to CV
- A space is added between the two letters so now it becomes:
<p>as df</p>

If some text is highlighted when switching between BV and CV it's deleted as a 
result.

Original comment by ahmadsam...@gmail.com on 9 Jan 2012 at 8:22

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Sorry, I meant
- In BV put the cursor between two letters e.g. between s and d

Original comment by ahmadsam...@gmail.com on 9 Jan 2012 at 8:23

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Did either of you install over a previous installation? If you did can you 
uninstall then reinstall and see if the issue persists?

Original comment by john@nachtimwald.com on 10 Jan 2012 at 12:00

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Yes, I did install 0.4.905 without uninstalling 0.4.2.

I reinstalled 0.4.2 without uninstalling the mess above and I swear I had the 
same problem with data disappearing. 

I just did a clean install of 0.4.905 which seems to have fixed the problem.

It's under Windows 7, by the way.

Original comment by markrpro...@gmail.com on 10 Jan 2012 at 12:21

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Using Linux here.

I see this bug with my local build, qtwebkit-2.2.1, qt-4.8.0, x86_64.

but not with the Sigil-0.4.905-Linux-x86-Setup.bin

Original comment by ahmadsam...@gmail.com on 10 Jan 2012 at 1:56

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Qt 4.8 has major issues. The Linux binary is using 4.7.4. 0.4.904 used Qt 4.8 
and rolling back to 4.7.4 appears to fix them. It seems that anyone who 
installed 0.4.904 on Windows then installed 0.4.905 without first uninstalling 
are having an issue where the Qt 4.8 dlls aren't being replaced with the 4.7.4 
ones. I'm not sure why but I can see the installer trying to do something smart 
like checking version numbers or something and not writing the "older" dlls.

Original comment by john@nachtimwald.com on 10 Jan 2012 at 2:52

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Original comment by john@nachtimwald.com on 13 Jan 2012 at 1:33

• Changed state: Fixed