Re: [Jabref-users] Group labels not organized

[Haines B. <ha...@hi...>]

On Tue, Jun 07, 2016 at 08:56:41AM -0400, Haines Brown wrote:
> When I moved to JabRef 3.4, I encountered a problem I had not seen
> before. It is perhaps easiest to explain with a hypothetical example.
> 
> Suppose I have these groups:
> 
>   hacksaw
>   |--teeth
>   |--metal
>   dentifrice
>   |--teeth
>   |--whitening
>   cogwheel
>   |--diameter
>   |--teeth
> 
> Now suppose I have a bibliographic entry that has to do with
> dentistry. I naturally link it to dentifrice, teeth. But what happens is
> that all three instances of "teeth" are highlighted, so that when I
> select articles having to do with dentifrice, teeth, also selected are
> articles on hacksaw teeth and cogwheel teeth.
> 
> I have been using JabRef 2.10 and apparently missed some configuration
> option that is in 3.4.

This behavior has brought an end to my work because I don't know if
establishing links between database entries and JabRef groups is causing
irreparable damage.

Normally, in "@comment{jabref-meta groupstree:" links are organized in a
hierarchy. Using my little hypothetical above, they would appear as:

  1. ExplicitGroup:hacksaw\;0\;<a key value>\;;
  2. ExplicitGroup:teeth\;0\;<a key value>\;;
  1. ExplicitGroup:dentifrice\;0\;a key value>\;;
  2. ExplicitGroup:teeth\;0\;<a key value>\;;
  ...

In JabRef 3.4, there is also a "@comment{jabref-meta groupstree:"
section in each database. However, it is no longer being used. New links
do not show up in it at all. All my old links between entries and group
names are gone. That is, each group is empty:

  3 ExplicitGroup:,groupname>\;0\;; 

Nevertheless if I click on a group, it somehow selects entries. This
suggests that JabRef 3.4 is using a different mechanism than the old
groupstree. However, this new mechanism is not hierarchical. For
example, in my hypothetical above, if I click on hacksaw,teeth, entries
for dentifrice,teeth and cogwheel,teeth are also selected.

This seems a major bug. Is everyone experiencing the same thing, or have
I grossly mis-configured JabRef?

Haines Brown