Manually adding a group via group field does not work anymore

[koppor]

JabRef build today.

• Mandatory: I have tested the latest development version from http://builds.jabref.org/master/ and the problem persists

Steps to reproduce the behavior:

See #6690 (comment)

Alternatively, manually edit the bib entry

Idea: Maybe JabRef's functionality regarding groups changed from August to now --> JabRef seems to parse groups defined at the lower part of JabRef and does not automatically create the groups:

@Comment{jabref-meta: grouping:
0 AllEntriesGroup:;
1 StaticGroup:By status\;2\;1\;0x8a8a8aff\;\;\;;
2 StaticGroup:Last read\;0\;0\;0x80334dff\;book\;\;;
2 StaticGroup:Skimmed\;0\;0\;0xe6994dff\;eye\;\;;
2 StaticGroup:To be read\;0\;0\;0x336633ff\;bullseye\;\;;
1 StaticGroup:By rating\;0\;1\;0x808080ff\;\;\;;
1 StaticGroup:For Project X\;0\;1\;0x336633ff\;security\;\;;
1 StaticGroup:For teaching\;0\;1\;0x4d3399ff\;school\;\;;
1 StaticGroup:My papers\;0\;1\;0x8a8a8aff\;note\;\;;
}

[k3KAW8Pnf7mkmdSMPHz27]

What do you mean by "manually adding a group via group field"? Is there a way of doing this without editing the bib entry?

Should creating a group by editing a bib entry work? I am thinking that there can be some confusion regarding empty ExplicitGroups (the ones with manually added entries)? Should they remain in the group list or be removed? What happens if you make a typo (i.e., will it create several empty groups)?

[Siedlerchr]

Adding a new group by adding a new group in the entry's group field. Does not make any sense toe me

[k3KAW8Pnf7mkmdSMPHz27]

I just don't know what this issue refers too. Following the steps in #6690 (comment) I get the result I expect ("For fun" is empty).

If the issue is that it is not possible to change the name in the .bib file manually, that should have been the case for quite a while, but the old format should still be supported. I suppose an alternative would be to generate a unique ID for groups and store the name separately (resolve JabRef strings in the groups field! 😁 ). There has been some previous discussion on the topic of unique group names. I can hunt down those references if that is what this issue is about? But would there be a point to being able to change group name in the .bib file?

I am assuming I am completely misunderstanding something 😛

[koppor]

I am thinking that there can be some confusion regarding empty ExplicitGroups (the ones with manually added entries)? Should they remain in the group list or be removed? What happens if you make a typo (i.e., will it create several empty groups)?

I see your point. I would say that deletion of "wrong" empty static groups is simpler than creating explict groups by hand. I am more a guy editing the BibTeX source than using some UI. Since JabRef perfectly shows the BibTeX source, I just edit that. I can add new authors, keywords, ... and all grouping works (hopefully ^^). Why not at explicit groups?

... some more thoughts ...

What do you mean by "manually adding a group via group field"? Is there a way of doing this without editing the bib entry?

Using drag'n'drop would IMHO be one way.

I actually solved the issue by replacing ALL of the content of the file as described. Thereby, I also replaced

1 StaticGroup:For teaching\;0\;1\;0x4d3399ff\;school\;\;;

by

1 StaticGroup:For fun\;0\;1\;0x4d3399ff\;school\;\;;

And then, the group was shown.

Should creating a group by editing a bib entry work?

I was expecting so. I thought, in 2016 we changed the groups format. See #1276, https://github.com/JabRef/jabref/blob/v3.8.2/CHANGELOG.md#changed-6, and a small announcement at http://blog.jabref.org/#october-04-2017-%E2%80%93-jabref-4-0.

We explicitly moved the groups into the groups field. Similar that I can change the author name in the BibTeX source and the automatic groups change accordingly, I am expecting, assigning an explicit group "magically" creates a static group.

[tobiasdiez]

You can add en entry to an existing group by editing the groups field, but it's not possible to create a new group this way (and never has been).

[koppor]

Thank you for clarification @tobiasdiez!