Entry window: Changing selected entry while editing the previous entry

[buhtz]

Current JabRef 5.* dev on Windows 10 64 bit.

Steps to reproduce:

1. Create group which collect its entry by a keyword (e.g. foobar) and create two entries with such a keyword.
2. Select that group and double click on one of the entries.
3. Remove the foobar keyword from that entry.

Now the problem...

4. The entry disappears from the entry list (because it does not has the keyword for that group anymore).
5. The second entry is selected then and the entry editor window changes and selects the second entry, too.

Technical this make sense. But for the user it does not.
And it is hazardouse because the user does not recognize that the entry editor window now containts data from another entry.

Imagine a group with 10 entries: My eyes are only on the keywords field in the entry editor! I remove the keyword. The window flickers but the keyword comes back to my eyes (because the next entry is selected automaticly). I think there is a bug (because it is the dev version and the buggy JavaFX-GUI with non-standard-behaviour) and try again, and again, and again... So I removed multiple entries from that group without recognizing it.

What I (as a user) would expect:

• The entry editor window still contains the first (by me) selected entry. No matter if the entry is still in the entry list or not.
• Or the entry editor window is closed automaticly when its entry disappears from the current entry list.

Could be relevant for #4564

[AEgit]

Note, that the behaviour in JabRef 3.8.2 was your first expectation, i. e.:

The entry editor window still contains the first (by me) selected entry. No matter if the entry is still in the entry list or not.

When the entry editor was closed, the entry you had worked on was still selected in the main table.

Users coming from older versions might have these expectations.

[buhtz]

What you talk about is a closed editor window. But this issue is about open ones.

[AEgit]

The first part of my comment talks about an open editor window, namely this part:

Note, that the behaviour in JabRef 3.8.2 was your first expectation, i. e.:

The entry editor window still contains the first (by me) selected entry. No matter if the entry is still in the entry list or not.

The second part talks about what was the case in 3.8.2 when the editor was closed (after being open, i. e. this is not about the editor being closed all the time), namely:

When the entry editor was closed, the entry you had worked on was still selected in the main table.

I think both parts of the comment are relevant for the topic.

[tobiasdiez]

Sadly there is nothing we can do here as it goes back to java bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8087910

[AEgit]

Do you think it would be worthwhile to create a workaround for this? The bug report (https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8087910) is from 2014 and it does not appear, that someone is working on this.

[tobiasdiez]

It's an irritating issue and I would really like to fix it. But the bug is deep in their code and I don't see an option to fix it or provide a workaround.

[AEgit]

I see, thank you for the explanation. Is there a way to convince them, that this bug is worthwhile being fixed (maybe through reporting the issue directly there)?

[koppor]

Seems like we have to re-implement JavaFX UI elements. Is this a call for reimplementing parts of the entry editor?

I did not experience the bug, however, I am currently no power groups user of JabRef.

Would it be possible to

a) provide a minimal example including a .bib file and precise steps where to click etc?
b) provide a screen recording showing this bug?

From programmer's side, I would love to see some code pointers so that I can think of resources I can assign to this issue.

[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!