Split-Run Numbering in docx XML

Problem

Contract numbering like （5） is often split across multiple <w:r> runs in the XML:

<w:r><w:t>（</w:t></w:r>
<w:r><w:t>5</w:t></w:r>
<w:r><w:t>）委托方</w:t></w:r>

A naive tracked_replace("（5）", "（6）") searching for the complete string in a single <w:t> will silently fail — no match, no error, no renumbering.

Solution: Multi-run concatenation + split

Algorithm

def tracked_replace_split_number(p, old_num, new_num):
    """Handle （old_num） spread across multiple runs."""
    target = f'（{old_num}）'
    new_target = f'（{new_num}）'
    
    # 1. Collect all plain runs (not inside w:ins or w:del)
    plain_runs = [(index, run, text) for each child of p]
    
    # 2. Slide a window: concatenate adjacent run texts until target is found
    for start in range(len(plain_runs)):
        concat = ""
        for end in range(start, start+4):  # max 4 runs for a number
            concat += plain_runs[end].text
            if target in concat:
                # Found! Extract before/after text around the number
                runs_to_wrap = plain_runs[start:end+1]
                # ...proceed to replace
    
    # 3. Remove original runs, insert:
    #    - [before_run if text before number]
    #    - DEL element with delText=target
    #    - INS element with t=new_target  
    #    - [after_run if text after number, e.g. "委托方"]
    
    # 4. Set rsid attributes: rsidDel on DEL runs, rsidR on INS runs

Critical: Process order

Always renumber from bottom to top (last paragraph first) to avoid index shifting:

# CORRECT
renumber = [(P113, '10', '11'), (P112, '9', '10'), (P111, '7', '8')]

# WRONG - P112 was already renumbered when we get to it
renumber = [(P111, '7', '8'), (P112, '9', '10'), (P113, '10', '11')]

Edge cases encountered (2026-06-08)

（ + 10） (two runs, not three) — the closing ） merged with the digit
（ + 5 + ）委托方 — closing ） merged with following text, must split run to preserve "委托方"
Copy w:rPr from original runs to all new DEL/INS runs to preserve font/size

Lesson

This was the root cause of a terminal review failure where 3 new clauses were inserted without numbering, and subsequent numbering was not renumbered. The tracked_replace function matched nothing because it expected （5） as a single text node.

2.4 KiB Raw Blame History