Add row ranges and non-contiguous ranges and address some issues

[TimG1964]

I've added a number of new functionalities of most use when writing xlsx files:

• pretty full functionality now for both row ranges and non-contiguous ranges (How to get a single row just by a row number? #150, indexing Rows with vectors #88, for example)
• normalizenames keyword for readtable() (Offer normalizenames? #260)
• extended range of value types that writetable() can use (Can supported types (for writing to Excel) be expanded - similar to CSV.write ? #239)
• ability to inspect merged cells (Handling of the merged cells #241)
• ability to add additional definedNames (Defining named ranges #148)
• docstrings for all of the above
• tests for all the above

This pull request rolls up all the changes proposed in #286, #287 and #288, which can probably be closed.

@felipenoris - altogether, I've made some quite big changes. If you'd like, I can post on Discourse describing them all and ask for others to try them out. This should give me an opportunity to fix any bugs that show themselves before you make a new release. Does that sound OK?

[TimG1964]

Not sure about this. My previous PR succeeded and I didn't change the CI.
All tests pass locally.

[TimG1964]

Hi again @felipenoris! Forgive me for still inching my way up the GitHub learning curve. I realise now that my suggestion isn't the best approach. I didn't realise that I could share my fork directly. I think this will be better. Then, if any one is interested, they can file bugs on my fork. I can (try to) resolve and then make another pull request on your package after that. Sorry for seeming to complicate matters before. I hope this new suggestion is better. If you have a better suggestion still, please let me know. Otherwise my coaches are google and AI, and learning is limited by my own imagination! Thanks for your patience!

[Eben60]

add - '1.10' (or equivalently - 'lts') to the matrix

[nhz2]

In terms of releasing a new version of XLSX.jl, we should wait for the next release of XML.jl to get bug fixes JuliaComputing/XML.jl#37 and JuliaComputing/XML.jl#32 .
As you can see in the downstream tests in https://github.com/JuliaComputing/XML.jl/actions/runs/13790200632/job/38567809829 the bug fix in JuliaComputing/XML.jl#37 breaks the development version of this package.

[TimG1964]

In terms of releasing a new version of XLSX.jl, we should wait for the next release of XML.jl to get bug fixes JuliaComputing/XML.jl#37 and JuliaComputing/XML.jl#32 .

Thanks, @nhz2. That makes sense.

As you can see in the downstream tests in https://github.com/JuliaComputing/XML.jl/actions/runs/13790200632/job/38567809829 the bug fix in JuliaComputing/XML.jl#37 breaks the development version of this package.

I was not aware of this. How does one test XLSX.jl against downstream tests of another application?

In terms of the fix, it looks pretty simple on the face of it. I know looks can be deceptive and I don't know how to test it myself, but simply changing Worksheet.jl:40 from

@assert XML.depth(sheet_row) == 1 "Malformed Worksheet \"$(ws.name)\": unexpected node depth for dimension node: $(XML.depth(sheet_row))."

to

@assert XML.depth(sheet_row) == 1 "Malformed Worksheet \"$name\": unexpected node depth for dimension node: $(XML.depth(sheet_row))."

looks like it should do it. I can't test the node depth because of the bug you identified in XML.jl, but the test was also ==1 when XLSX relied on EzXML.jl, so I'm still assuming it is right.

I've included the above fix in the branch Bug-fixing-post-#289

[nhz2]

To test XLSX with an unreleased version of another package, I am using Pkg.develop to add both packages to a temporary environment, and then testing XLSX.
Here is the code. You would need to adjust path to the location where the local versions of the packages are.

using Pkg
Pkg.Registry.update()
Pkg.activate(;temp=true)
Pkg.develop([
    PackageSpec(path="/home/nathan/github/XLSX.jl"),
    PackageSpec(path="/home/nathan/github/XML.jl"),
])
Pkg.update()
Pkg.test("XLSX")

You should see something like:

     Testing XLSX
...
      Status `/tmp/jl_0E8Pxi/Manifest.toml`
...
  [fdbf4ff8] XLSX v0.10.5-dev `~/github/XLSX.jl`
  [72c71f33] XML v0.3.4 `~/github/XML.jl`

if things are working and Pkg.test is using the local versions of the packages.

I think the fix is to change the == 1 to == 2 since from what I can tell EzXML depth starts at 0 whereas XML starts at 1.

[TimG1964]

Oh, that makes sense!

I'll give it a go.

EDIT. Yes. If I change ws.name to name and change the test to ==2 then it works as you suggest with the devd XML package. I just ran the tests locally rather than on GitHub.

There is another test for node depth in stream.jl and making the same change from ==1 to ==2 works there as well.

Thanks!

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 63.57724% with 224 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 85.49%. Comparing base (f4767c4) to head (746c051).
Report is 14 commits behind head on master.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
src/cellformats.jl	43.58%	66 Missing ⚠️
src/worksheet.jl	25.00%	66 Missing ⚠️
src/cellref.jl	65.62%	55 Missing ⚠️
src/workbook.jl	75.00%	23 Missing ⚠️
src/read.jl	82.92%	7 Missing ⚠️
src/write.jl	92.64%	5 Missing ⚠️
src/table.jl	97.67%	1 Missing ⚠️
src/types.jl	83.33%	1 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master     #289      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   95.02%   85.49%   -9.53%     
==========================================
  Files          15       16       +1     
  Lines        2009     3462    +1453     
==========================================
+ Hits         1909     2960    +1051     
- Misses        100      502     +402     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

[TimG1964]

I wasn't aware of these codecov tests but I obviously should have been! They don't run when I make a PR.

I've downloaded Coverage.jl and will try to use it to resolve the issues and then make a new PR.

[felipenoris]

@TimG1964 , no need to worry too much about codecov. But it is a good idea to cover some of the new code with some tests if possible.

[TimG1964]

Will close this now and make a new PR when I've added a bunch more tests to improve coverage!