Fix exclude consistency fields 13131 #13305

lawmeyian · 2025-06-11T15:03:16Z

This PR modifies the BibliographyConsistencyCheck to exclude specific fields from consistency checks. Fields such as COMMENT, CROSSREF, and AUTOMATIC_FIELDS, along with any SpecialField or UserSpecificCommentField, are now filtered out to avoid false positives during consistency validation. This improves the relevance of reported issues and aligns the behavior with user expectations.

Steps to test

Open JabRef with a .bib file containing entries with fields such as comment, pdf, sortkey, groups, etc.
Go to Quality > Check integrity or use the consistency check dialog.
Observe that these excluded fields no longer trigger consistency warnings.
Add a custom field not on the exclusion list and verify it is still flagged.

Run unit tests in BibliographyConsistencyCheckTest — especially:

```
  filteredFieldsAreIgnored
```
```
  nonFilteredFieldDifferenceIsDetected
```

No UI changes were made, so testing is limited to data checks and developer view.

Mandatory checks

I own the copyright of the code submitted and I license it under the MIT license
Change in CHANGELOG.md described in a way that is understandable for the average user (if change is visible to the user)
Tests created for changes (if applicable)
Manually tested changed features in running JabRef (always required)
Screenshots added in PR description (if change is visible to the user)
Checked developer's documentation: Is the information available and up to date? If not, I outlined it in this pull request.
[/] Checked documentation: Is the information available and up to date? If not, I created an issue at https://github.com/JabRef/user-documentation/issues or, even better, I submitted a pull request to the documentation repository.

trag-bot · 2025-06-11T15:07:38Z

jablib/src/test/java/org/jabref/logic/quality/consistency/BibliographyConsistencyCheckTest.java

+        assertTrue(result.entryTypeToResultMap().isEmpty(),
+                "Differences only in filtered fields must be ignored");


The use of assertTrue to check for an empty map is less informative than using assertEquals to directly compare the map to an empty map, which would provide clearer test failure messages.

trag-bot · 2025-06-11T15:07:53Z

jablib/src/test/java/org/jabref/logic/quality/consistency/BibliographyConsistencyCheckTest.java

+        // AUTHOR should be reported as a unique field
+        var typeResult = result.entryTypeToResultMap().get(StandardEntryType.Misc);
+        assertNotNull(typeResult);
+        assertTrue(typeResult.fields().contains(StandardField.AUTHOR));


Using assertTrue to check if a collection contains an element is less informative than using assertEquals to compare the collection to an expected collection, which would provide clearer test failure messages.

trag-bot · 2025-06-11T15:25:25Z

jablib/src/main/java/org/jabref/logic/quality/consistency/BibliographyConsistencyCheck.java

@@ -69,7 +114,10 @@ public Result check(List<BibEntry> entries, BiConsumer<Integer, Integer> entries

            List<BibEntry> differingEntries = entryTypeToEntriesMap
                    .get(entryType).stream()
-                    .filter(entry -> !entry.getFields().equals(commonFields))
+                    .filter(entry -> {
+                        Set<Field> entryFiltered = filterFields(entry.getFields());


The variable name 'entryFiltered' is not descriptive enough. It should convey the purpose or content of the variable more clearly.

jabref-machine · 2025-06-11T15:28:11Z

JUnit tests of jablib are failing. You can see which checks are failing by locating the box "Some checks were not successful" on the pull request page. To see the test output, locate "Tests / Unit tests (pull_request)" and click on it.

You can then run these tests in IntelliJ to reproduce the failing tests locally. We offer a quick test running howto in the section Final build system checks in our setup guide.

calixtus · 2025-06-11T18:10:24Z

jablib/src/main/java/org/jabref/logic/quality/consistency/BibliographyConsistencyCheck.java

 import java.util.function.BiConsumer;

+


calixtus · 2025-06-11T18:12:13Z

jablib/src/main/java/org/jabref/logic/quality/consistency/BibliographyConsistencyCheck.java

+    //   – plus any SpecialField or UserSpecificCommentField (filtered at runtime)
+    // ----------------------------------------------------------------
+    private static final Set<Field> FILTERED_FIELDS = Stream
+            // start with JabRef’s built‐in AUTOMATIC_FIELDS set


Remove this comment, code is self-explanatory

The issue with AI comments is that if humans and AI both work in the code, it is not ensured if the comments match the implementation if the code is updated.

calixtus · 2025-06-11T18:12:47Z

jablib/src/main/java/org/jabref/logic/quality/consistency/BibliographyConsistencyCheck.java

 import org.jabref.model.entry.types.EntryType;

 public class BibliographyConsistencyCheck {

+    // ----------------------------------------------------------------


Use proper Java doc, keep comment style

subhramit · 2025-06-11T18:30:20Z

jablib/src/main/java/org/jabref/logic/quality/consistency/BibliographyConsistencyCheck.java

+                     .filter(f -> !FILTERED_FIELDS.contains(f))
+                     .filter(f -> !(f instanceof SpecialField))
+                     .filter(f -> !(f instanceof UserSpecificCommentField))


We avoid abbreviations

Suggested change

.filter(f -> !FILTERED_FIELDS.contains(f))

.filter(f -> !(f instanceof SpecialField))

.filter(f -> !(f instanceof UserSpecificCommentField))

.filter(field -> !FILTERED_FIELDS.contains(field))

.filter(field -> !(field instanceof SpecialField))

.filter(field -> !(field instanceof UserSpecificCommentField))

subhramit · 2025-06-11T18:36:58Z

jablib/src/main/java/org/jabref/logic/quality/consistency/BibliographyConsistencyCheck.java

+    /**
+     * Drop any field we don’t want to check.
+     */
+    private static Set<Field> filterFields(Collection<Field> fields) {


Nitpick: Can you use a better method name, hinting at what we are filtering against? "filterFIelds" is a bit generic. Lets consider filterXFields or removeXFields - think what one word can "X" be, based on the logic?
If no such crisp word is possible, you can ignore this suggestion.

subhramit · 2025-06-11T18:39:00Z

jablib/src/main/java/org/jabref/logic/quality/consistency/BibliographyConsistencyCheck.java

+    /**
+     * Drop any field we don’t want to check.
+     */
+    private static Set<Field> filterFields(Collection<Field> fields) {


Also, we can be more specific here wrt the parameter

Suggested change

private static Set<Field> filterFields(Collection<Field> fields) {

private static Set<Field> filterFields(SequencedSet<Field> fields) {

subhramit · 2025-06-11T18:52:09Z

jablib/src/test/java/org/jabref/logic/quality/consistency/BibliographyConsistencyCheckTest.java

+                "Differences only in filtered fields must be ignored");
+    }
+
+    @SuppressWarnings("checkstyle:RegexpMultiline")


Do not suppress checkstyle warnings without having a good reason to do so.

Hi subhramit,
thank you for your advice. I will fix it.

subhramit · 2025-06-11T18:54:40Z

jablib/src/test/java/org/jabref/logic/quality/consistency/BibliographyConsistencyCheckTest.java

+                .withField(StandardField.COMMENT, "another note")
+                .withField(StandardField.PDF, "other.pdf");
+
+        var result = new BibliographyConsistencyCheck().check(List.of(a, b));


Please don't use var. At JabRef, we prefer strict types.
Also, did the compiler not complain here? You sent one argument instead of two, so the unit test is failing. Did you run the test before filing the PR?

subhramit · 2025-06-11T18:55:19Z

jablib/src/test/java/org/jabref/logic/quality/consistency/BibliographyConsistencyCheckTest.java

+        var result = new BibliographyConsistencyCheck().check(List.of(withAuthor, withoutAuthor));
+
+        // AUTHOR should be reported as a unique field
+        var typeResult = result.entryTypeToResultMap().get(StandardEntryType.Misc);


Similar comments regarding var and number of arguments here as https://github.com/JabRef/jabref/pull/13305/files#r2140865139.

lawmeyian added 4 commits May 26, 2025 22:30

fixed issue

1038371

Fix: Exclude specific fields from consistency check (JabRef#13131)

e3c1fe8

fixed issue

b073a0c

make change to CHANGELOG.md

8e7b892

trag-bot bot reviewed Jun 11, 2025

View reviewed changes

Merge branch 'main' into fix-exclude-consistency-fields-13131

6189539

trag-bot bot reviewed Jun 11, 2025

View reviewed changes

calixtus reviewed Jun 11, 2025

View reviewed changes

subhramit reviewed Jun 11, 2025

View reviewed changes

		assertTrue(result.entryTypeToResultMap().isEmpty(),
		"Differences only in filtered fields must be ignored");

	private static Set<Field> filterFields(Collection<Field> fields) {
	private static Set<Field> filterFields(SequencedSet<Field> fields) {

Uh oh!

Fix exclude consistency fields 13131 #13305

Are you sure you want to change the base?

Fix exclude consistency fields 13131 #13305

Uh oh!

Conversation

lawmeyian commented Jun 11, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Steps to test

Mandatory checks

Uh oh!

trag-bot bot Jun 11, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

trag-bot bot Jun 11, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

trag-bot bot Jun 11, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

jabref-machine commented Jun 11, 2025

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

subhramit Jun 11, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

lawmeyian commented Jun 11, 2025 •

edited

Loading

subhramit Jun 11, 2025 •

edited

Loading