zkh152 / xdocreport

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

Generated docx output's footnotes id are not unique. #229

Closed GoogleCodeExporter closed 9 years ago

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago
What steps will reproduce the problem?
1. Create a template with multiples footnotes. 
2. Create output by processing the template.
3. Unzip docx and open footnotes.xml : All footnotes has the same id. 

What is the expected output? What do you see instead?

I expected to have a new unique id for each resulting footnotes. But the same 
id is affected to all standard footnotes(those not resulting by loops).     

What version of the product are you using? On what operating system?
XdocReport version 1.0.0 with velocity Engine.

Please provide any additional information below.

In fact I use a third part tool to convert docx to another document format and 
it is troubled by this duplicate id. Word silently correct the issue when I 
open or open/save as the output doc, the way to see the problem is to unzip 
docx and see footnotes.xml(for ID) and document.xml(for ID references).

Original issue reported on code.google.com by adem.kil...@oxand.com on 21 Feb 2013 at 3:14

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago
Thank's to have create this issue, I don't know when I will have time to see 
this problem.

Original comment by angelo.z...@gmail.com on 21 Feb 2013 at 3:17

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago
[deleted comment]
GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago
Ok thank's, I will try to integrate your patch asap.

Original comment by angelo.z...@gmail.com on 21 Feb 2013 at 4:08

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago
 Here is a patch that resolve this issue by sequencial id generation with count on all existing contextual notes including those generated by template engine loops.

Original comment by adem.kil...@oxand.com on 21 Feb 2013 at 4:08

Attachments:

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago
Patch applied in commit 1d910afc0e9994fd1d52e192f64d3e9691608d16

Original comment by pascal.leclercq on 21 Feb 2013 at 9:14