Toggling 'relevance' no more visible in entry list

[ytzemih]

Marking/unmarking entries has no more effect. Except for the changes in the bibtex source, nothing is currently shown. This also holds of quality, print status, priority, read status (as far as existing in 4.x).

Is that feature currently being revised, thus, things that I should see are just not implemented or is this a bug?

(I'm using Ubuntu 19.04 and JabRef 5.0-beta.342--2020-01-15--58709e7, Linux 5.3.0-26-generic amd64, Java 13.0.2)

[calixtus]

Hi @ytzemih . Thank you for your note.

Marking an entry is no more in v. 5.0.
Instead we use entry groups, which provide the same functionality. If you're changing from v. 4.x to 5.0, JabRef should put the marked entries in a new group.

Special fields like ranking should be visible in the entry editor as a simple field (will probably be changed in the future for a more easy-to-use alternative) and in the main table in a special column in al manner. You can add the colums to the main table via the options menu > preferences > entry table colums .

Can you please try this and tell us, if this solves this issue?

Refs #5768

[calixtus]

Please do not forget to make a backup of your library before you try a beta.

[ytzemih]

Will do and thanks for the clarification. Yes, I tried that feature, in the entry editor and I added columns to the entry table. Seems to work all nicely.

Just a minor issue: Unranked papers can currently only be ranked through the context menu, unlike read status, relevance, priority, and quality which can be directly toggled. However, after the first ranking, the star bar is shown in the entry list and can be toggled as usual. Although I realise that "empty star bar" = 0 stars and "unranked" are two different states. Following the logic of the other classification attributes, one could just treat these two states as equal, btw tools such as Rythmbox (a GTK-based media player) also handle it like this.

Otherwise, I consider this issue as closable.

[Siedlerchr]

@ytzemih Thanks for the feedback. I created a new issue based on your comment to tackle this further