Implement a duplicate checker for Citation Relations entities

[AbdAlRahmanGad]

Fixes #10414
I implemented the duplicate checker by comparing entries names although I am not sure if it's the best way yet.

As for the second requirement.

Additionally, at button 4, the duplicate check should be called (which then warns about possible duplicates).

There is already a code that replaces the "add button" to a "link button" if the entry is a local one.

Preview

Untitled.mov

Mandatory checks

• Change in CHANGELOG.md described in a way that is understandable for the average user (if applicable)
• Tests created for changes (if applicable)
• Manually tested changed features in running JabRef (always required)
• Screenshots added in PR description (for UI changes)
• Checked developer's documentation: Is the information available and up to date? If not, I outlined it in this pull request.
• Checked documentation: Is the information available and up to date? If not, I created an issue at https://github.com/JabRef/user-documentation/issues or, even better, I submitted a pull request to the documentation repository.

[Siedlerchr]

much simpler, use the existing duplicate check https://github.com/JabRef/jabref/blob/main/src/main/java/org/jabref/logic/database/DuplicateCheck.java#L38

[koppor]

much simpler, use the existing duplicate check main/src/main/java/org/jabref/logic/database/DuplicateCheck.java#L38

It might be that the duplicate check needs to be improved. One can do that test-driven. -- Nevertheless, that check needs to be used, because other JabRef functionality also relies on that code.

[AbdAlRahmanGad]

much simpler, use the existing duplicate check main/src/main/java/org/jabref/logic/database/DuplicateCheck.java#L38

It might be that the duplicate check needs to be improved. One can do that test-driven. -- Nevertheless, that check needs to be used, because other JabRef functionality also relies on that code.

I'd like to try to improve the checker. Should I start by writing test cases and detect the weaknesses?

[koppor]

It might be that the duplicate check needs to be improved. One can do that test-driven. -- Nevertheless, that check needs to be used, because other JabRef functionality also relies on that code.

I'd like to try to improve the checker. Should I start by writing test cases and detect the weaknesses?

Sure thing. I think, the main issue is #8885. - The hint at #9769 (comment) is worth to read. See the diff https://github.com/JabRef/jabref/pull/9769/files where tests are located.

When working in the code, leave some JavaDoc how to treat duplicates.

The current idea is IMHO that each difference gets some points. So that if, by accident, an entry has the same identifier, it could still be a non-duplicate somehow. However, I would try to change the algorithm to treat identifier equality as equal entries. -- And weight title the highest. One has really to play around with the thing.

Please do in a separate pull request - and just use the duplication check in this PR. (Reason: Keeping the pull requests small)

[AbdAlRahmanGad]

Sure thing. I think, the main issue is #8885. - The hint at #9769 (comment) is worth to read. See the diff https://github.com/JabRef/jabref/pull/9769/files where tests are located.

When working in the code, leave some JavaDoc how to treat duplicates.

The current idea is IMHO that each difference gets some points. So that if, by accident, an entry has the same identifier, it could still be a non-duplicate somehow. However, I would try to change the algorithm to treat identifier equality as equal entries. -- And weight title the highest. One has really to play around with the thing.

Please do in a separate pull request - and just use the duplication check in this PR. (Reason: Keeping the pull requests small)

Ok, I will keep that in mind.
As for the current PR I used the duplication check in the latest commit 2b36941.

[koppor]

Good start, some minor comments.

[koppor]

@AbdAlRahmanGad Please check GitHubs CI report 30 minutes after submitting the PR. In the concrete case, you see that CHANGELOG.md has conflicts. Either resolve them using GitHub or your local IDE. IntelliJ has excellent support for resolving conflicts. With refined github you will also have excellent support in the browser.

[koppor]

@AbdAlRahmanGad Looks good. Do you think, something is left from your side? If not, you can mark it as "Ready for review"!