[Libreoffice-bugs] [Bug 100070] New: UKENR (Norwegian WEEKNUM function) gives wrong week numbers.

[b***@bugs.documentfoundation.org]

https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=100070

Bug ID: 100070
Summary: UKENR (Norwegian WEEKNUM function) gives wrong week
numbers.
Product: LibreOffice
Version: unspecified
Hardware: All
OS: Linux (All)
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: medium
Component: Calc
Assignee: libreoffice-***@lists.freedesktop.org
Reporter: ***@gmail.com

User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Ubuntu; Linux x86_64; rv:46.0)
Gecko/20100101 Firefox/46.0
Build Identifier: LibreOffice 5.1.2.2

LibreOffice versjon 5.1.2.2. Norwegian version. Function UKENR(01.01.1995;1) is
expected to be different than UKENR(01.01.1995;2), but provides the same
output. I have not tried the English version but it is the WEEKNUM function.

Reproducible: Always

Steps to Reproduce:
1. Install Norwegian version of LO 5.1.2.2
2. Enter =UKENR(01.01.1995;2).
3. Compare with =UKENR(01.01.1995;1)
Actual Results:
Both provide week 1 as output

Expected Results:
=UKENR(01.01.1995;2) should output week no 52
=UKENR(01.01.1995;1) sould output week 1

[Information automatically included from LibreOffice]
Locale: nb
Module: SpreadsheetDocument
[Information guessed from browser]
OS: Linux (All)
OS is 64bit: yes


Reset User Profile?No

[b***@bugs.documentfoundation.org]

https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=100070

A (Andy) <stgohi-***@yahoo.de> changed:

What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
CC| |stgohi-***@yahoo.de
Ever confirmed|0 |1
OS|Linux (All) |All

--- Comment #1 from A (Andy) <stgohi-***@yahoo.de> ---
I suppose you have used =UKENR("01.01.1995";2) instead of =UKENR(01.01.1995;2)?

For me this is reproducible with LO 5.1.3.2, (Win 8.1). I also receive only 1.
This is differently than expected (see
https://help.libreoffice.org/Calc/WEEKNUM).

[b***@bugs.documentfoundation.org]

https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=100070

--- Comment #2 from Ole Holte Sandvik <***@gmail.com> ---
Sorry for the delay. Yes, I used =UKENR("01.01.1995";2) instead of
=UKENR(01.01.1995;2).

[b***@bugs.documentfoundation.org]

https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=100070

--- Comment #3 from Alex H. <***@gmail.com> ---
I didn't try in Norwegian, only in English, but I can confirm the behavior.
However, I think that the behavior is correct and that there is a mistake in
the documentation.

At https://help.libreoffice.org/Calc/WEEKNUM it says:

System 1: The week containing January 1 is the first week of the
year, and is numbered week 1.

In other words, if the mode argument is either absent, 1, 2, 11, 12, 13, 14,
15, 16 or 17, for January 1st of _any_ year the return value must be 1.

However, this directly contradicts the example further down on the same page:

=WEEKNUM(DATE(1995;1;1);2) returns 52. If the week starts on Monday,
Sunday belongs to the last week of the previous year.

This is wrong, I think. January 1st 1995 was a Sunday, but that doesn't even
matter under system 1, where the outcome should be 1 regardless of which day
the week starts on.

(The Norwegian version of that page,
https://help.libreoffice.org/Calc/WEEKNUM/nb, contains essentially the same
text.)

[b***@bugs.documentfoundation.org]

https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=100070

--- Comment #4 from QA Administrators <qa-***@libreoffice.org> ---
** 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 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

[b***@bugs.documentfoundation.org]

https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=100070

--- Comment #5 from Ole Holte Sandvik <***@gmail.com> ---
I can confirm that the mistake is in the documentation, and that it has not
been corrected.

Alex got it right. It is just the example in the documentation that is
incorrect. The documentation explains correctly, except for the example.

However, if possible, a reference to the ISOWEEKNUM function should be
included. This gives the output that European users, and users from many other
countries, want without setting mode argument.