Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Biblatex dates like "19uu" not saved. #3483

Closed
wujastyk opened this issue Dec 3, 2017 · 7 comments
Closed

Biblatex dates like "19uu" not saved. #3483

wujastyk opened this issue Dec 3, 2017 · 7 comments
Labels
bug Confirmed bugs or reports that are very likely to be bugs entry-editor status: stale ui

Comments

@wujastyk
Copy link

wujastyk commented Dec 3, 2017

JabRef 4.1-dev--snapshot--2017-12-03--master--56aa71671
Linux 4.10.0-40-generic amd64
Java 1.8.0_151

The "Date" field will not accept a Biblatex-legal date of the form "19uu". One can enter the date, but on moving the cursor to another field, the date is erased.

@tobiasdiez tobiasdiez added bug Confirmed bugs or reports that are very likely to be bugs entry-editor ui labels Dec 4, 2017
@Siedlerchr Siedlerchr added this to the v4.1 milestone Dec 4, 2017
@Siedlerchr
Copy link
Member

There is also an issue for planning the support/integrity check of all dates #2753

@Siedlerchr
Copy link
Member

For the moment we need to decouple the date picker from the field

@Siedlerchr
Copy link
Member

Siedlerchr commented Dec 15, 2017

I looked into the code and the problem is that there is a StringConverter, which tries to convert to a date or TemporalAcessor. Of course for the above kind of dates this is not possible and therefore results in null
DateEditorViewModel

return Date.parse(string).map(Date::toTemporalAccessor).orElse(null);

@tobiasdiez
Copy link
Member

So as soon as #2753 is implemented, this should work automatically, right? I remove this from the 4.1 milestone as a fix seems to be a longer story.

@tobiasdiez tobiasdiez removed this from the v4.1 milestone Dec 15, 2017
@Siedlerchr
Copy link
Member

Could we as a workaround just return the original date if parsing was not successful?

@github-actions
Copy link
Contributor

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!

@buhtz
Copy link

buhtz commented Jan 14, 2021

This is so great how to take care of Issues. Ignore them for months and then let them close by a bot.

@koppor koppor moved this to Done in Prioritization Nov 10, 2022
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
bug Confirmed bugs or reports that are very likely to be bugs entry-editor status: stale ui
Projects
Archived in project
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants