Effective February 22, 2024, Google Groups will no longer support new Usenet content. Posting and subscribing will be disallowed, and new content from Usenet peers will not appear. Viewing and searching of historical data will still be supported as it is done today.

Dismiss

2,229 views

Skip to first unread message

Dec 2, 2009, 1:41:01 AM12/2/09

to

I am using a Word Template for preparing invoices for quite some time. This

Template is serving my purpose better than an Excel Template because of

better word processing capabilities of Word along with basic calculations

support in tables.

Template is serving my purpose better than an Excel Template because of

better word processing capabilities of Word along with basic calculations

support in tables.

However, in my Template a formula [=SUM(ABOVE)] in a table give obviously

incorrect result when there is only one row above. I can attach a copy of

this Template if it is allowed by this Discussion Group, or send it by email.

Meanwhile I try to explain the situation below:

This invoice would often have three or more Parts, e.g. Part-A, Part-B, …

Below each Part there is a row for Sub Total Part-X, and in this the Sub

Total is calculated with =SUM(ABOVE). But in cases when there is only one row

in a given Part, the Sub Total Part-X [i.e. =SUM(ABOVE)] give obviously

incorrect result. The result is calculated correctly as soon as I insert one

or more rows in this Part.

Luckily, the final Total is not affected by such incorrect =SUM(ABOVE)

formula result because it use a formula =SUM(F:F). This work because in all

the row of Sub Total Part-X, the Sub Total is only visually displayed below

column F but due to merged cells it is not actually in column F. =SUM(ABOVE)

sums all consecutive rows visually above it but =SUM(F:F) sum all numbers in

column F.

So I have to manually type in the Sub Total Part-X where there is only one

row in a given Part-X. Am I doing something wrong or is there a work around?

A can attach a copy of this Template if it is allowed.

N.K.Saini

Dec 2, 2009, 2:54:47 AM12/2/09

to

Hi N.K.Saini,

Which Word version? Do you mean the formula fails if the table has only two rows? If not how many rows does the table have and on

which row(s) are the data?

--

Cheers

macropod

[Microsoft MVP - Word]

PS: See my discussion on SUM(ABOVE) etc, in my Word Field Maths Tutorial, at:

http://lounge.windowssecrets.com/index.php?showtopic=365442

or

http://www.gmayor.com/downloads.htm#Third_party

"Naresh Kumar Saini" <NareshKu...@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message

news:9C331385-75FB-4E42...@microsoft.com...

Dec 2, 2009, 4:45:02 AM12/2/09

to

Macropod,

It happens in (perhaps) all versions -- I have checked Ver 97, 2000, 2003

and 2007. The table have many rows, say 30, or more. For example:

Sl_No Qty Rate Amount <-- Table header row.

Part-A <-- Merged cells in this row, i.e. A,B,C are merged.

(1) 11 15 165

(2) 13 18 234

SubTotal 399 <-- SubTotal is correct: there are MORE THAN ONE line to total.

Part-B < -- Merged cells in this row, i.e. A,B,C are merged.

(1) 15 21 315

SubTotal 243 <-- SubTotal is incorrect: there is ONLY ONE line to total.

NetTotal 714 <-- NetTotal is correct irrespective of incorrect SubTotals.

SubTotal is calculated by =SUM(ABOVE). This row also has cells A,B,C merged.

The result is displayed in cell D, which is visually below cell D of

preceeding rows. This formula sums CONSECUTIVE non-blank numbers in cells

ABOVE. Due to merged (as well as blank) cell on Part-X rows, the SubTotal

formulas always calculate total for a given Part-X only, till it encounters a

blank cell.

NetTotal is calculated by =SUM(D:D). It can calculate the NetTotal correctly

because its result is not disturbed by Part-X rows and SubTotal rows (which

do not have a cell D due to merging) and which are anyway blank.

This template always work correctly for me except in cases when there is

only one row to sum in a given Part-X by chance. Strange...

I can attach a copy of this template, but it seems there is no option to

attach files. I can also send a copy by email.

N.K.Saini

"macropod" wrote:

> .

>

Dec 2, 2009, 6:58:47 AM12/2/09

to

Hi N.K.Saini,

With the table structure you supplied, I would expect the second sub-total to display 315 (which is what I get), not 243, since 315

is the value of the preceding row. Does the Part-B merged row have any numbers in it? If so, it is likely that Word is including the

sum of those numbers (-72) in the second sub-total.

To avoid any numbers in the Part-B merged row affecting the subsequent calculations I'd suggest putting that cell's contents into

another single-celled table nested on that row. With a bit of care in formatting, no one will notice the nested table's presence.

--

Cheers

macropod

[Microsoft MVP - Word]

"Naresh Kumar Saini" <NareshKu...@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message

news:D79A16B8-BEDD-452B...@microsoft.com...

Dec 10, 2009, 2:43:01 AM12/10/09

to

Macropod,

I did some more tests on the line you suggested and I noticed something

which may help identify the exact cause of error in the formula result.

(1) This behaviour (incorrect =sum(above) formula result) ALWAYS occur

whenever there is only one row to sum in ANY part. This means, the error

would occur in Part-A, Part-B or Part-C, etc if there is only one row to sum

in this Part. As soon as there are two or more rows to sum, the formula start

showing correct result.

(2) This behaviour can be reproduced in following steps:

(a) 2x2 Table: (second row is merged)

1 2

2 [formula is =sum(above), result is 2]

(b) 2x3 table: (third row is merged)

_ _ [first col. may have number, second col. must be blank]

1 2

3 [formula is =sum(above), result is 3]

(c) 2x3 table: (third row is merged)

1 2 [first col. may be blank, second col. must have zero/number]

3 4

6 [formula is =sum(above), result is 6]

(3) Please note that =sum(above) sum the last column merged, i.e. if A, B,

C, D are merged, it will sum column D only.

(4) Please also note that in 2(b) above, where FIRST row is blank,

=sum(above) has summed column A & B of SECOND row.

It seems this error occur because of a clash between how Word interpret

“above” in merged cells of a table and formula =sum(above) try to sum

consecutive numeric cells above itself – but when it do not find more than

one consecutive numeric cells above it (and it is in a merged cell), it tend

to sum the columns above the merged cell.

N.K.Saini

"macropod" wrote:

> .

>

Feb 10, 2020, 6:00:30 PM2/10/20

to

Reply all

Reply to author

Forward

0 new messages

Search

Clear search

Close search

Google apps

Main menu