writerfilter/source/dmapper/DomainMapper_Impl.cxx | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
New commits:
commit 44596779cc7704110c9a3340de31727409e5c256
Author: Justin Luth <justin.l...@collabora.com>
AuthorDate: Mon Dec 16 14:02:18 2024 -0500
Commit: Caolán McNamara <caolan.mcnam...@collabora.com>
CommitDate: Mon Dec 23 22:39:32 2024 +0100
tdf#164075 rtfimport: ignore assert developed for DOCX fixing
I don't exactly remember why I put the assert there,
but it sounds reasonable to expect that if
the paragraph defined the numbering
that it should also have numbering rule content,
and if it doesn't, then it is worth investigating why.
Investing anything related to RTF is never worthwhile.
Change-Id: I6525d0a40d9535f1888056a610576085941605a3
Reviewed-on: https://gerrit.libreoffice.org/c/core/+/178607
Reviewed-by: Justin Luth <jl...@mail.com>
Tested-by: Jenkins
Reviewed-on: https://gerrit.libreoffice.org/c/core/+/179265
Tested-by: Jenkins CollaboraOffice <jenkinscollaboraoff...@gmail.com>
Reviewed-by: Caolán McNamara <caolan.mcnam...@collabora.com>
diff --git a/writerfilter/source/dmapper/DomainMapper_Impl.cxx
b/writerfilter/source/dmapper/DomainMapper_Impl.cxx
index 12f53cac270d..2247758d8ad0 100644
--- a/writerfilter/source/dmapper/DomainMapper_Impl.cxx
+++ b/writerfilter/source/dmapper/DomainMapper_Impl.cxx
@@ -2665,7 +2665,7 @@ void DomainMapper_Impl::finishParagraph( const
PropertyMapPtr& pPropertyMap, con
return rValue.Name == "NumberingRules";
});
- assert( isNumberingViaRule == (itNumberingRules !=
aProperties.end()) );
+ assert(isNumberingViaRule == (itNumberingRules !=
aProperties.end()) || IsRTFImport());
isNumberingViaRule = (itNumberingRules !=
aProperties.end());
if (m_xPreviousParagraph.is() && (isNumberingViaRule ||
isNumberingViaStyle))
{
