Initial conference paper bibliography consistency check #10778
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
koppor
changed the title
![github-actions[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/15368?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
src/main/java/org/jabref/logic/quality/consistency/PaperConsistencyCheckResult.java
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
src/main/java/org/jabref/logic/quality/consistency/PaperConsistencyCheckResult.java
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
src/main/java/org/jabref/logic/quality/consistency/PaperConsistencyCheckResult.java
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
src/main/java/org/jabref/logic/quality/consistency/PaperConsistencyCheckResult.java
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
src/main/java/org/jabref/logic/quality/consistency/PaperConsistencyCheckResult.java
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
src/main/java/org/jabref/logic/quality/consistency/PaperConsistencyCheckResult.java
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
…and absent fields.
koppor
force-pushed
the
add-quality-check
branch
from
06d336b to
c79e252
Compare
Siedlerchr
reviewed
Jan 15, 2024
| PaperConsistencyCheck.EntryTypeResult entries = mapEntry.getValue(); | ||
| SequencedCollection<BibEntry> bibEntries = entries.sortedEntries(); | ||
|
|
||
| bibEntries.forEach(Unchecked.consumer(bibEntry -> { |
Siedlerchr
reviewed
Jan 15, 2024
| allFields.forEach(field -> { | ||
| theRecord.add(bibEntry.getField(field).map(value -> { | ||
| if (requiredFields.contains(field)) { | ||
| return "x"; |
Siedlerchr
requested changes
Jan 15, 2024
| .get(entryType).stream() | ||
| .filter(entry -> !entry.getFields().equals(commonFields)) | ||
| .sorted((e1, e2) -> { | ||
| int first = e1.getFields().size() - e2.getFields().size(); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Extract this to a comparator method stuff
|
Will try to add Markdown output in this PR, too. |
|
The build for this PR is no longer available. Please visit https://builds.jabref.org/main/ for the latest build. |
|
Should we merge this first draft? |
Very OK for me! There won't be markdown, but an ASCII ouput (like the one of lychee) to really enable it for usage in a CI. |
Siedlerchr
approved these changes
Jan 27, 2024
6 tasks
This was referenced Oct 13, 2024
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
When writing a paper, one copies BibTeX entries to the .bib file for the paper. Then, one deletes fields to make the library shorter. Maybe, one does not touch the entries at all. All in all, there will be inconsistencies in the bib file, which typically need manual investigation. (More discussion on that topic at #160)
This PR adds the logic to check the references of a given list of BibEntries for consistency: Do the entries of the same entry type have the same fields set?
The output is a CSV file.
For a real-life publication (pseudonymized here based on the from-aux functionality), the output is as follows
Future work is to provide an integration in the UI.
This PR gets reviewable if #10776 is merged. Therefore marked as draft.
Mandatory checks
CHANGELOG.mddescribed in a way that is understandable for the average user (if applicable)