(New?) Lock file dialog promotes data disaster

[kaabssi]

Hello,

in our office we are using LibreOffice. Our documents reside on a server share that everybody can access. We rely on the lock file mechanism to prevent people from editing the same document at the same time.

When opening a file, the lock file mechanism allows Libre Office to warn users about a document being already open at another computer. However, recently this dialog has changed and now easily allows to open a document while ignoring the lock file:

Screenshot Libre Office Calc 7.5.5.2

In my opinion, the “Open” button is just too prominently placed. As one is used to click on “Open” buttons, people tend to use it. However, this button overrides the lock file mechanism and as soon as the user who clicked on the “Open” button closes the document, data disaster happened:
a) the user who had the lock in the first place will overwrite any changes made by the user who clicked on the “Open” button
b) any other user will be able to open the file without being informed about the document being already open as the lock file has been removed.

Is it possible to remove/disable the “Open” button in this dialog or modify the dialog so that “Open” is not that prominent (e.g. that it is smaller or that a warning pops up when clicked)?

Thank you.
Dan

[keme1]

Sounds like a bug to me. Circumventing file integrity measures was possible before, through editing “special” settings. This one looks to be too easy, so the regular end user may stumble upon it without knowing the implications.

Bug reports do not go here. See the Bug Report link on the feedback page.

[kaabssi]

I posted this question here as I hoped that there is a user side solution to this issue (except for training all users to navigate the “Document in Use” dialog very cautiously).
However, I followed your suggestion and filed a bug report, see here: 159717 – Lock file warning dialog promotes data disaster

[keme1]

There may be a user/admin side solution (somehow disabling this functionality) that I do not know about. To me, the behavior you describe looks like something not intended, i.e. a bug (on some level). Whether it is indeed so, and if so whether it is a developer slip or a misunderstanding of development plan, I can not say.

It may also be that the software was written as intended, but that something in your network settings (like storage area rights) contributes to the issue. Then it is strictly a glitch, not a bug.

Alas, I do not have the proper storage environment available, nor the specified software version, to try to reproduce your situation. Someone else may come back to you on that, here or there.