Search for an entry without triggering group or other fields

[ThiloteE]

JabRef 5.4--2021-08-15--96061b7
Windows 10 10.0 amd64
Java 16.0.2
JavaFX 16+8

Problem

• when i search for an entry that is within a group and the groupname is similar to what i search for, the group field triggers and thereby unfortunately shows all entries within that group, even though there are many entries that are not relevant to my search.
• the problem intensifies when having hundreds of groups and thousands of entries
• Search commands such as "not group and title" do not work

Example
In the following example, the entry "Bordo" is not wanted

Workaround
In the following screenshot i use author=böhme as a workaround to exclude other entries.

Why post this on github, even though there is a workaround?

• If there are 10 fields (example for a field: author, range of date, title, group, etc.) and one wants to have a search with 8 out of 10 included, but 2 fields excluded, then this will lead to a long chain of search commands.
• Typing long chains of search commands takes a long time and is prone to errors
• Typing long chains of search commands just to exclude ONE single field of entry (in this case 'groups') seems not very efficient.
• Having to use search commands is not very intuitive for new users of JabRef. I only found out they existed after finding this website: https://docs.jabref.org/finding-sorting-and-cleaning-entries/search, not from within JabRef. Only later i noticed that there is a short explanation when hovering over search for a little while.

Solution

• Increase visibility of search commands
• Create new functionality and/or extend existing functionality that allows to exclude certain fields (e.g. Groups) from a search.

i am sure there are many ways to Rome.

Additional Notes

To be clear: i do NOT argue for the removal of to search all fields. (= search everywhere) I think it is a very good start for a search. Also, i do NOT argue for the removal of being able to search for terms that are located within the group field.

[ThiloteE]

suggested tags:

• enhancement
• search
• groups

[ThiloteE]

thank you :) That came as fast as lightning xD

[ThiloteE]

JabRef 5.4--2021-11-15--9955a33
Windows 10 10.0 amd64
Java 16.0.2
JavaFX 17.0.1+1

I checked again today if this works. To make it more clear, why this issue is relevant and not just a hypothetical theoretical plaything, i provide a real world example:

What i want:

• I want to create one big library(-file) for all my projects, therefore i create groups for each single project. (I know we now have global search again, but still...)
• I wanted to search within a group with many entries for the author "Keynes" or any entries that mention Keynes in any other field EXCEPT GROUPS, because the groupname is related to Keynes.

What happens:

• ALL entries within that group are displayed as search result.
  

• this stands at odds with more stringent search results. If i remove all the entries from the group, i only find 5 entries that have bibliographic metadata that is related to Keynes in my library:
  
  Finding only these 5 entries is what is desired.

• when i attach all the entries to the group again and try to search within this group, but try to exclude the group from being searched with the syntax @koppor used in Fix search: NOT binds more than AND #8241, then it results in NO entries being displayed at all:
  

All this becomes even messier when entries are part of more than one group.

This issue blocks my aspiration of creating one big library file.

[ThiloteE]

related discussion in the forum: https://discourse.jabref.org/t/can-i-have-mutually-exclusive-groups/3015

[ThiloteE]

Another workaround via RegEx search:

1. Have a group called Colistra.

2. Have two entries:

   @Article{test1,
     author       = {Rita Colistra},
   

   and

   @Article{test2,
     groups = {Colistra},
   }
   

3. Activate RegEx search

4. Enter this line into search bar: Colistra and groups != Colistra

Result:

only the entry test1 will show, which is exactly what I want.

Something similar should work out of the box and not just via RegEx.

Additional Info:

For anybody who is willing to work on this:

JabRef maintainers are currently in the middle of adopting Lucene as search syntax, so this is relevant, but adopting Lucene is the main issue. See #8206