When the Dynamic Array PR #3962 was introduced, it left the default as Return Array as Value. At some point, the default should be changed to Return Array as Array. This would, of course, be a breaking change, one which will not be part of Release 4. However, it will possibly be part of Release 5.
Rather than relying on the default setting, this PR explicitly sets Return Array as Value when tests require that setting. This will make it easier to identify potential breaks when the default is changed. The entire test suite will now succeed with either setting as default.
In making these changes, a few minor problems were discovered with how Array as Array is handled. These are fixed with this PR.
The CONCATENATE function has been treated as equivalent to CONCAT. This is not how it is treated in Excel; it is closer to (and probably identical to) the ampersand concatenate operator. The difference manifests itself when any of the arguments is an array (typically a cell range). Code is added to support this difference.
Support for array results is added to Csv Writer, Html Writer, and Ods Reader and Writer. I have not figured out how to get it to work with Xls.
While researching another problem, I noticed that font color was not working as expected for Xls Conditional Formats, at least not when a "non-standard" color is used. In such cases, the color might wind up being rendered as black. The reason is as follows. Xls Writer includes a color palette which is dynamically generated from the (non-Conditional) styles used in the workbook. Any colors used in the workbook are indexes to this dynamic palette. However, Conditional colors use a static palette found in class ColorMap to determine the index, so the determination of index will often not find a match, and, if a match is found, it is not necessarily correct. (Also, the ColorMap method was case-sensitive and needs to be insensitive.)
In order to correct this, the `addColor` method in Xls Writer Workbook needs to be accessible to the Conditional logic which is found in Xls Writer Worksheet. This is accomplished by passing the Workbook in the Worksheet's constructor, and changing the method to public, and changing Conditional Font to use this method rather than ColorMap.
The logic for Conditional Fill colors is similarly changed. Although Xls Conditional Fill has appeared to just not work, I was finally able to figure out the problem. Excel Xls Conditional Fill with fill type Solid requires that the fill color be specified as startColor, and that endColor be omitted. Our conditional samples used endColor, and are now changed to use startColor instead; the same is true for our online documentation, and for some tests. Xlsx continues to work as expected, and now Xls does at least some of the time. If the condition is one that Excel Xls does not recognize (e.g. cell contains), it will, of course, not work. A surprising situation that also doesn't work is the use of ISODD or ISEVEN in formulas. Those are "add-in functions" which are handled differently than other functions, and I'm not sure how to support them. I will document this in issue #3403.
Samples 08_Conditional_Formatting(_2) had produced corrupt Xls versions. This turned out to be because the code was using hash codes to avoid having to write out duplicate conditionals; this is often a good idea, but not in this case. Allowing the duplicates fixes the corruption problem.
Conditional Border colors also ought to figure in this change, but the current code does not support Border colors, and I have not yet been able to figure out how to implement it (BIFF format can be very messy to figure out).
With this change, I could delete ColorMap altogether. However, it is a public class with a static public method, so maybe someone is using it for a purpose I'm not familiar with. I will just deprecate it.
While we might never be able to have 100% of our code strict, we can at
the very least do it for all of our tests. This ensures that our tests
are using our API with the types as intended by the test author, and not
silently be cast to what our API requires.
The setup for unit testing in Github in the "Install dependencies" log reports 11 members as "does not comply with with psr-4 autoloading standard." In each case, it is because the test namespace does not match the directory; in most cases, it was caused by the member being moved from one directory to another without changing the namespace declaration. No harm results from these problems, but there's also no reason to not correct them.
For functions introduced in Excel 2010 and beyond, Excel saves them
in formulas with the xlfn_ prefix. PhpSpreadsheet does not do this;
as a result, when a spreadsheet so created is opened, the cells
which use the new functions display a #NAME? error.
This the cause of bug report 1246:
https://github.com/PHPOffice/PhpSpreadsheet/issues/1246
This change corrects that problem when the Xlsx writer encounters
a 2010+ formula for a cell or a conditional style. A new class
Writer/Xlsx/Xlfn, with 2 static methods,
is introduced to facilitate this change.
As part of the testing for this, I found some additional problems.
When an unknown function name is used, Excel generates a #NAME? error.
However, when an unknown function is used in PhpSpreadsheet:
- if there are no parameters, it returns #VALUE!, which is wrong
- if there are parameters, it throws an exception, which is horrible
Both of these situations will now return #NAME?
Tests have been added for these situations.
The MODE (and MODE.SNGL) function is not quite in alignment with Excel.
MODE(3, 3, 4, 4) returns 3 in both Excel and PhpSpreadsheet.
However, MODE(4, 3, 3, 4) returns 4 in Excel, but 3 in PhpSpreadsheet.
Both situations will now match Excel's result.
Also, Excel allows its parameters for MODE to be an array,
but PhpSpreadsheet did not; it now will.
There had not been any tests for MODE. Now there are.
The SHEET and SHEETS functions were introduced in Excel 2013,
but were not introduced in PhpSpreadsheet. They are now introduced
as DUMMY functions so that they can be parsed appropriately.
Finally, in common with the "rate" changes for which I am
creating a pull request at the same time as this one:
samples/Basic/13_CalculationCyclicFormulae
PhpUnit started reporting an error like "too much regression".
The test deals with an infinite cyclic formula, and allowed
the calculation engine to run for 100 cycles. The actual number of cycles
seems irrelevant for the purpose of this test. I changed it to 15,
and PhpUnit no longer complains.
oleibman
Adrien Crivelli
Owen Leibman