Show entries that are not within a group (within a separate group)

[ThiloteE]

JabRef 5.3--2021-07-02--eed637a
Windows 10 10.0 amd64
Java 16.0.1
JavaFX 16+8

The Problem:

In a large database with many entries and many groups, it is hard to find entries that are duplicates and/or not attached to a specific project and or group. I am frustrated when i have to go through all the entries by hand as this takes a long time.
This becomes increasingly important if one deletes a group (for whatever reason).

Describe the solution you'd like
Show entries that are not within a group in a separate group AND/OR add a function to "delete group with all entries that are within this group".

Additional context

Here the video why this is important. I also find that the duplicate manager is a powerful tool, but can be quite the hassle to work with.

2021-07-04.18-51-24-1.mp4

[ThiloteE]

One can see a non-group item when using the ALL ENTRIES group and checking the group colour. No colour means: The entry is not assigned to a group.

Entries that have a group entry in the bib file, but that very group has not been created in JabRef yet, will show up, as if they do not belong to a group (no colour).

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

[ThiloteE]

Workaround:

Use RegEx:

Explanation:

author != .+ returns entries with empty or no author field.

https://docs.jabref.org/finding-sorting-and-cleaning-entries/search#searching-for-entries-with-an-empty-or-missing-field

Also I personally liked to include readstatus, because I have some groups that do not have a group field, they get grouped by field readstatus, but I can imagine some people would not include readstatus.

Maybe the workaround can be adapted internally to create a standard group for entries that are not yet within a group.

[AEgit]

Note, that this is very similar to the problem described in #4237

[LoayGhreeb]

@ThiloteE, @koppor, could you check if the issue should be closed after we added the "invert groups" toggle (#11510, #9073)?

If you want to view all entries that don't belong to any group, set the groups view mode to "union" and select all groups (Ctrl + A) in the groups pane. Exclude the "all entries" group from the selection, then enable the invert toggle. This will show all entries that don’t belong to any group.

[ThiloteE]

I do have groups based on free search expressions that show in the groups pane, but are technically "not a group", as they do not have a groups field in biblatex source. Toggling the "invert" button while having this group selected will NOT show only entries without groups.

Example:

We have users that have thousands of groups in the groups pane. Those users will have a tough time finding and excluding those groups based on free search expression.

From a user point of view, having a separate toggle or a special group or adding an option in the "add groups" window is still a high value addition to JabRef.

[ThiloteE]

BUT, maybe the floating mode will solve this issue.

[ryan-carpenter]

There have been several issues like this, and even though most are now closed, there are still some gaps and it does take a lot of familiarity with JabRef to fully utilise the grouping/searching/filtering features. Floating search mode helps, but only if the necessary options are selected and the results view is understood (considering that entry groups in the table are not labelled).

@ThiloteE, I think an exclusive disjunction ("exclusive OR", "XOR", "either but not both") might help with your example. This could be a third state for the group toggle button, as I suggested in #9073.

A⊕B, A⊻B, A↮B, or A≢B Logic symbols: Wikipedia

My previous suggestion was not as clear as the alternatives described by @LoayGhreeb 's in #9073 (comment), and the issue was closed with the addition of the "Invert selection" button. I'm not sure if exclusive disjunction was considered at that time.

Multiple group selection could get complicated!

A⊕B⊕C

Open
#7049

Closed
#679, #6908, #7871, #9073, #11297 (duplicate of #9073), and #11510 (floating search mode)

[koppor]

I read "a group" as "any group". Thefore, it is part of #12659.

The advanced expressions at #7871 (comment) will require a group matcher in Search.g4.. Currently it seems, it possible using "CONTAINS" and other logical operators?

I will close this issue, because the title and the understanding of it are adressed. We can nevertheless continue disussion here. -- Or maybe move to the disourse forum?