Entry preview in Version 4

(Anthony H Harker) #1

I’ve just updated to version 4, and when I open a database the preview appears to divide the available space equally between all items being displayed. This is unpleasing and illogical – when are volume, number, pages, year or entries going to need more than one line? Perhaps there’s a profile available that restores the preview format of version 3.x. If so,
(a) I’d be grateful if you could point me to it;
(b) it would be better to have it as the default.
I’m considering reverting to version 3.x if there’s no easy solution.

(Matthias Geiger ) #2

you can simply change the size of the preview using the mouse by hovering over the vertical seperation between the main table and the preview and then dragging to your preferred size.
The size is then stored in your local preferences and should be restored the next time you open the preview.

Best regards

(Anthony H Harker) #3

Of course I can – and thereby I can expand the Abstract, Author, Ttitle… fields in the preview to three or four lines each, or cnatract them to one line each. That’s not what I want – I want sensible allocation of the preview pane to the different fields.

(Tobias Diez) #4

Which fields are a problem for you? Most fields are only one or two lines, so I don’t see a problem of making them of equal size. The abstract (and review) fields are in an extra tab, so there should be no problem there.

(Anthony H Harker) #5

Under the previous version I could see everything I wanted (including the abstract) on the one preview pane. Most fields, as Tobias says, are only one line, so unless the abstract was particularly long there was enough space for it all to be visible. As for making all the fields the same size – well, three lines for a year just looks silly. Yes, I can change to another tab for the abstract, but it’s a bit irritating when a new release imposes this sort of change.

(Matthias Geiger ) #6

Honestly I don’t really get you…

What is called “Preview” in JabRef looks exactly the same in both, JabRef 3.8 and 4.0:

What we call the “Entry Editor” is looking like this in 3.8 and 4.0:

So here are some differences - but the layout is basically the same in 3.8 and 4.0… So what exactly is the change from 3.X to 4.0 that is annoying you?

(Anthony H Harker) #7

Sorry, I do indeed mean the Entry Editor. I rashly overwrote my previous installation, but on an older machine I have version 2.10. There I had the Entry Editor set up so that the first page displayed, in order, Abstract (several lines), Author (1 line), Journal (1 line), Key, Month (1 line), Number (1 line), Pages (1 line), Title, Volume (1 lijne), Year (1 line) , Bibtexkey (1 line), If I resized the Entry Editor pane some fields would disappear from the bottom of the window but a scroll bar would appear on the right. My preferences for which fields to display were correctly imported when I installed Version 4 – the difference is that the fields seem always to have equal sizes, determined by evenly dividing the window height, with the scroll bar appearing when every field shrinks to one line. The previous method suited me, and I’d got used to it, but tempora mutantur, nos et mutamur in illis.
Lest I sound grouchy, let me wind up with sincere thanks to all who developed and maintain JabRef: it is a superb tool.

(Tobias Diez) #8

Ok, now I understand your problem. Can you please try the build from https://builds.jabref.org/weightMultiline/ (make sure you download the build having “weightMultiline” in its name) and check if the issue is resolved in this version. I hard-coded the weight of the abstract field to be 4 times as much as a normal field. Do think this is ok, or should we increase/decrease the weight?

(Anthony H Harker) #9

Tobias, you are a star! I’m sorry I explained my issue so badly at first, but what you have set up in that build is absolutely spot-on. I think the 4-1 weighting is ideal for a conventional screen orientation, and what it gives me is, I think, even better than what I had before. Many, many thanks.

(Tobias Diez) #10

I’m glad I’ve been able to help and you like the solution! You can keep working with the snapshot you downloaded yesterday, its a fully workable version. In any case, the code is now integrated into the main development version and will be part of the next release.