Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

I believe these are regressions from 2.5.7:

#1 - Unable to update specific cross-references

I converted a book (not a Book) to beta 3058 and manually updated all of the cross-references that were broken by the TOC update bug. I'm unable to update two of the cross-references. If I edit these two cross-references and select the target anchor in the list, double-clicking the target or clicking OK edits the cross-reference (as shown in the History panel) but the Cross-References panel still shows Target Missing.

I deleted the anchor generated by the TOC feature for one of these cross-references and then updated the TOC to generate a new anchor. I then edited the cross-reference again and experienced the same issue.

I noticed these two problematic cross-references are both cross-references to the same target as some other cross-references. If I delete the other xrefs to the same target, then updating the missing one works correctly. Perhaps it is updating the wrong one because...

#2 - Deleting a cross-reference doesn't always delete the right one

If I have multiple xrefs to the same target and sort the xref panel list by Name, and then select the 2nd of two or 3rd of three and delete it, Publisher might actually delete the first of them rather than the one I selected.

I'm unable to duplicate these two issues in a test document. Please let me know if you'd like me to send you the book for testing.

#3 - History action name

This isn't a regression but I'm mentioning it in here because you'll probably notice it, too, while testing the above. When you delete a cross-reference, the action is listed as Expand Field instead of what it should be.

Posted
3 hours ago, Sean P said:

Would you be ok to upload a copy of your document below please?
https://www.dropbox.com/request/sCAOhG1zA9TMVqLc1g04

Done. I didn't include the resources because I don't think they're relevant but let me know if you have difficulty reproducing this.

Thanks

  • Staff
Posted

Thanks Mike,

It is incredibly weird - initially I assumed it was (and might well still be) because you deleted the initial anchor and then created a new one. However, as you say you can't just repoint it to the new anchor, as it still shows as highlighted.

What I did notice is that you don't even need to delete one, to then edit the broken one. You can just edit the Cross Reference Text (stick another character in the text 'page' for example) and click OK. This will cause the CR marked as 'OK' to be updated (you should see the changed value), the broken one will then display without an anchor selected - which would make sense as its reporting it as missing. You're then able to reselect the anchor. So it does feel like there are some cross references here that think they are the same.

I'll get the document passed on to see if we're able to sus out the root cause!

  • Staff
Posted

An issue raised in this thread ("Some Cross References are being treated as one in user file") has now been reported to the developers by the testing team (Ref: AF-5687). Thank you very much for reporting this issue to us.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Guidelines | We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.