search

princevil / google-refine

Automatically exported from code.google.com/p/google-refine
0 stars 0 forks source link

Refine doesn't retain the characters for flat or sharp #163

Closed GoogleCodeExporter closed 8 years ago

GoogleCodeExporter commented 8 years ago 
I had flats (♭) and sharps (♯) in the Excel file that I imported into 
Refine but they were not rendered properly (showing up as ?).  I hit the edit 
button in Refine for the field and pasted from Excel the flats and sharps and 
it looked like they "stuck" -- but when I restarted Refine, they were displayed 
as ? again.

Version 1587.

Original issue reported on code.google.com by raymond....@gmail.com on 17 Oct 2010 at 9:25

GoogleCodeExporter commented 8 years ago 
Similar to Issue-107

Original comment by thadguidry on 20 Nov 2010 at 4:16

GoogleCodeExporter commented 8 years ago 
Raymond - I've fixed some character encoding issues which may have resolved 
this.  Can you retest (or provide the data file that didn't work before)?

Thad (if you're following this) - If you type issue 107, instead of issue-107, 
it will get hotlinked for you automatically, making the reference easy to 
follow.

Original comment by tfmorris on 26 Nov 2010 at 11:59

GoogleCodeExporter commented 8 years ago

Original comment by tfmorris on 27 Nov 2010 at 2:48

GoogleCodeExporter commented 8 years ago 
Cool. I wondered why it wasn't working anymore.  Must have forgot the 
comment/wiki syntax for Google Code.  Good to know, about not including the 
dash after issue. Thanks Tom.

Original comment by thadguidry on 29 Nov 2010 at 4:48

GoogleCodeExporter commented 8 years ago 
Tom:  I tested the latest version of Refine for this problem and things seem to 
be working fine now.  Thanks!

Original comment by raymond....@gmail.com on 30 Nov 2010 at 2:54

GoogleCodeExporter commented 8 years ago 
Thanks for retesting!  Marking as fixed...

Original comment by tfmorris on 30 Nov 2010 at 5:05

GoogleCodeExporter commented 8 years ago 
Thanks for retesting!  Marking as fixed...

Original comment by tfmorris on 30 Nov 2010 at 5:05

GoogleCodeExporter commented 8 years ago 
Thanks for retesting!  Marking as fixed...

Original comment by tfmorris on 30 Nov 2010 at 5:05

GoogleCodeExporter commented 8 years ago 
Should we not be marking as 'verified' if the original reporter has tested it 
and concurs with the dev that it is fixed?  (Changing the status to 'verified'.)

Original comment by iainsproat on 30 Nov 2010 at 5:12

GoogleCodeExporter commented 8 years ago 
I haven't seen a description of the bug life cycle the project uses, but for my 
projects we usually "verify" against a released version, not SVN (it could get 
broken again or not get released properly or ...)

Original comment by tfmorris on 30 Nov 2010 at 8:19

GoogleCodeExporter commented 8 years ago 
I haven't seen a description of the bug life cycle the project uses, but for my 
projects we usually "verify" against a released version, not SVN (it could get 
broken again or not get released properly or ...)

Original comment by tfmorris on 30 Nov 2010 at 8:19

GoogleCodeExporter commented 8 years ago 
tfmorris, you're right about a "verified" bug still getting broken for the next 
release. I presume that's a low chance, though. An alternative is to go over 
each bug just before the next release and verify it, but that sounds more 
tedious. Do you know of any other alternative work flow?

Original comment by dfhu...@gmail.com on 2 Dec 2010 at 7:12

GoogleCodeExporter commented 8 years ago

Original comment by tfmorris on 9 Jun 2011 at 7:58