Importing to the correct mode when searching (BibTeX vs biblatex)

[oscargus]

Most (all?) of the fetchers will now produce a BibTeX entry. When importing to a BibLaTeX database, this causes some issues, see e.g. #1015. It might make sense to add some mechanism to the search interface such that the correct format is returned. For example, this can be achieved by "search formatters", which will also remove some of the need of explicit cleanup code in the fetchers as well as some of the preference settings.

[stefan-kolb]

I don't think this should be classified as a bug.
The question here is, who is responsible for outputting the correct format?

• the fetcher
• Jabref itself

I think it should be the fetcher that must be aware of what to output because he is the only one that is able to produce correct entries?!
On the other hand, this would force the fetcher to know the current mode which adds another dependency or at least a parameter to the call.

If we transform entries after fetching to the correct format this could be a hard thing.
This can only work if we always fetch Biblatex and rearrange the fields and strip unsupported fields etc.

[tobiasdiez]

We discussed it in the DevCall: Fetcher should try to fetch in BibLaTex format, but can also return BibTex format. Afterwards JabRef should always run a converter which converts to the correct mode depending on user preferences (for this a BibLaTex > BibTex converter has to be written, based on the BiblatexCleanup).

[github-actions]

This issue has been inactive for half a year. Since JabRef is constantly evolving this issue may not be relevant any longer and it will be closed in two weeks if no further activity occurs.

As part of an effort to ensure that the JabRef team is focusing on important and valid issues, we would like to ask if you could update the issue if it still persists. This could be in the following form:

• If there has been a longer discussion, add a short summary of the most important points as a new comment (if not yet existing).
• Provide further steps or information on how to reproduce this issue.
• Upvote the initial post if you like to see it implemented soon. Votes are not the only metric that we use to determine the requests that are implemented, however, they do factor into our decision-making process.
• If all information is provided and still up-to-date, then just add a short comment that the issue is still relevant.

Thank you for your contribution!

[Siedlerchr]

This issue is now finally closed and fixed in the latest development snapshot

We would like to ask you to use a development build from https://builds.jabref.org/main and report back if it works for you. Please remember to make a backup of your library before trying-out this version.