mathesis type option should not include curly braces

[khatchad]

Version

JabRef 5.1--2020-08-30--e023aa0
Linux 5.8.0-29-generic amd64
Java 14.0.2

Steps to reproduce the behavior

1. Create a @MastersThesis entry
2. Select type as "mathesis" under the optional fields UI.

Expected outcome

In the bibtex source: type = mathesis,

Actual outcome

In the bibtex source: type = {mathesis},

[koppor]

Context

Comment

We read the BibLaTeX manual. Somehow, there is the type defined. I did not knew that at all. Think, we should remove that field. Refs #6856

The default is that you do not need to set it manually. Please leave the field alone. ^^

Typically, one DOES NOT need to provide an additoinal type field. The @MasterThesis already provides the type. Thus, following entry is OK:

@Masterthesis{key,
  author = {Aline Jasmin},
  title = {My title}
}

Yours reads

@Masterthesis{key,
  author = {Aline Jasmin},
  title = {My title},
  type = mathesis
}

which is double information. See https://latextemplates.github.io/scientific-thesis-template/ for a full latex example without any type field.

Information Gathering

Can you please provide us more background to your bibtex / biblatex setup? I read the string mathesis (see JabRef support at https://docs.jabref.org/advanced/strings) the first time.

Is it really supported as default in BibTeX? Meaning that BibTeX internally defines mathesis?

Which bibtex style do you use? Does that style possibly define mathesis?

[khatchad]

I am using the moderncv class for my resume. And, you are correct, if I remove the type = mathesis, I get the same results. It's redundant. I agree that it should be removed.

[khatchad]

Note though that the type field itself may be necessary for other entry kinds other than @MastersThesis, or there may be types other than mathesis that make sense for @MastersThesis. I have not checked these.

[Siedlerchr]

I think this issue can be closed, as the field type is not necessary, but it's still listed in the biblatex spec.

[koppor]

I put the "freeze" label on it as we should come back later this time. In case the field type really produces wrong BibTeX output, it should be fixed.

I marked the difference in the submitter's comment:

what to do:

1. Create a minimal MWE-bibtex including a .tex and a .bib file with type filled. One entry with {}, the other one without
2. Create a minimal MWE-biblatex including a .tex and a .bib file with type filled. One entry with {}, the other one without
3. Typeset the document
4. Check whether the ouptputs differ
5. Think why the outputs diffor (or not)
6. Take appropriate steps (JabRef code chaganges? Comment on this issue? Add a biblatex-to-bibtex migration deleting the type field? Add a clenaup deleting the type if it matches the entry type? Add a tooltip on the Type input at the entry editor?)