UPDATED: Bookings with consecutive timeslots are not displayed in full if they are followed by a blocked timeslot

[aivarii]

[x]: This is a bug and not a question.

Describe the bug**

If a booking has been entered that occupies several consecutive time slots and after that comes a blocked time slot occurs, then it will not be displayed in full. This only happens when blocked timeslots are hidden.

To Reproduce**

Steps to reproduce the behavior:

1. Enter a booking that occupies multiple consecutive time slots and which is followed by a blocked timeslot.
2. On the configuration page, change the setting "Hide Blocked Periods (hide.blocked.periods)" to false.

Expected behavior**

All calendar views should display all the bookings on the page /Web/schedule.php

Screenshots**

First calendar view, everything is correct:

Second calendar view, one timeslot is empty. Although it should display a reservation there:

But if the setting "Hide Blocked Periods (hide.blocked.periods)" is true, the reservation will be visible:

Additional context**

For testing purposes, you can use my time slots.
Bookable time slots:
08:00 - 08:30 8.00-8.30
08:30 - 09:40 1. tund (8.30-9.40)
09:50 - 11:00 2. tund (9.50-11.00)
11:00 - 11:30 Vahetund (11.00-11.30)
11:30 - 12:40 3. tund (11.30-12.40)
12:40 - 13:30 Kasulik aeg (12.40-13.30)
13:30 - 14:40 4. tund (13.30-14.40)
14:50 - 16:00 5. tund (14.50-16.00)
16:00 - 17:00 16.00-17.00
17:00 - 18:00 17.00-18.00

Blocked time periods:
00:00 - 08:00
09:40 - 09:50
14:40 - 14:50
18:00 - 00:00

Specifications

• LibreBooking develop branch: e81f465
• The problem still persists even in version 4.2.0

[JohnVillalovos]

@aivarii In your config do you use schedule -> fast.reservation.load?

[JohnVillalovos]

@aivarii Can you confirm the exact value of schedule.hide.blocked.periods in each screenshot and in the failing case? The issue text says the bug “only happens when blocked timeslots are hidden,” but the reproduction step says to set hide.blocked.periods to false, which would show blocked periods. So they seem to conflict each other.

[JohnVillalovos]

@aivarii Can you test #1146 to see if it resolves your issue?