Support » Plugin: Visual Table Formatting Lite » Bug in column order handling in complex tables

  • Hello!

    I think, I’ve found a bug in column order handling in complex tables. If you take a look at the page, I’ve provided a link to, you see what I want to accomplish. This is a complex table with merged cells in the first column and alternating row colours with separate “rhytm” for alternation in the first resp. the remaining columns.

    The code that produces the table is:

    [vtftable cols=”{0}0-3:009900;{/}{2}0-3:eee;{/}{4}0-3:eee;{/}{6}1-3:eee;{/}{7}0:eee;{/}{8}1-3:eee;{/}{9}0:eee;{/}{10}1-3:eee;{/}{11}0:eee;{/}{12}1-3:eee;{/}{13}0:eee;{/}{14}1-3:eee;{/}{15}0:eee;{/}{16}1-3:eee;{/}{17}0:eee;{/}{18}1-3:eee;{/}” fols=”{0}0-3:ffffff;{/}” mer=”5,0,6,0;11,0,13,0;” wid=”0:22%;1:20%;2:18%;3:40%:” st=”bt:5;”]
    kazo;;;en singularo;;;en pluralo;;;klarigo;nn;
    nominativo;;;talo;;;talot;;;domo, domoj;nn;
    akuzativo;;;talon;;;talot;;;domon, domojn;nn;
    genetivo;;;talon;;;talojen;;;de domo, de domoj (posedo);nn;
    partitivo;;;taloa;;;taloja;;;parton de domo, domoj, ne en tute;nn;
    esivo;;;talona;;;taloina;;;kiel domo, domoj;nn;
    {f120};;;tiistaina;;;–;;;(ĉi-)marde, je mardo;nn;
    translativo;;;taloksi;;;taloiksi;;;igi aŭ iĝi (al stato de) domo resp. domoj; rezulto de aĝo aŭ ŝanĝigo;nn;
    inesivo;;;talossa;;;taloissa;;;en domo, domoj;nn;
    elativo;;;talosta;;;taloista;;;el, ekster domo, domoj;nn;
    ilativo;;;taloon;;;taloihin;;;en domon, domojn;nn;
    adesivo;;;talolla;;;taloilla;;;ĉe domo, domoj;nn;
    {f120};;;pöydällä;;;pöydillä;;;sur tablo, tabloj;nn;
    {f120};;;minulla;;;–;;;mia;nn;
    ablativo;;;talolta;;;taloilta;;;ekde, el (stato estate ĉe) domo, domoj;nn;
    alativo;;;talolle;;;taloille;;;ĉirkaŭ domon, domojn;nn;
    abesivo;;;talotta;;;taloitta;;;sen domo, domoj;nn;
    instruktivo;;;taloin;;;taloin;;;per domo, domoj;nn;
    komitativo;;;taloineen;;;taloineen;;;(ri) kun sia domo, siaj domoj; kunhavante;nn;
    [/vtftable]

    The table is likely to be changed and therefore I thought to rearrange the colouring alternations to more manageable (at least for me) order:

    cols=”{0}0-3:009900;{/}{2}0:eee;{/}{4}0:eee;{/}{7}0:eee;{/}{8}0:eee;{/}{9}0:eee;{/}{11}0:eee;{/}{13}0:eee;{/}{15}0:eee;{/}{17}0:eee;{/}{2}1-3:eee;{/}{4}1-3:eee;{/}{6}1-3:eee;{/}{8}1-3:eee;{/}{10}1-3:eee;{/}{12}1-3:eee;{/}{14}1-3:eee;{/}{16}1-3:eee;{/}{18}1-3:eee;{/}”

    That is, I first have the first column and then the remaining columns. Logically those two colouring schemes are identical. But this later scheme doesn’t produce the same effect. Please, test yourself. My guess is, that the looping of the column codes is one-pass or something along that line.

    I can live with the working solution. I just wished, it would have been a little easier to make the upcoming changes. This is complex enough table anyway.

    The page I need help with: [log in to see the link]

  • The topic ‘Bug in column order handling in complex tables’ is closed to new replies.