Jabref 5.10 not allowing citations to be added into sub-groups with right-click?


Upgraded to Jabref 5.10 last week, and today tried to add a citation into the database and then link it or categorize it in a sub-group, which previously I could do by right clicking on the groups line item and then “add selected items to group” . . . .

Today, multiple attempts to do that have failed, right-clicking moves to that sub-group and nothing gets added into the group . . . ??? This seems to be a significant issue as far as maintaining and adding items into a data base??

Running Jabref in Pop_OS! system. Please advise.

Jabref says it is “up to date” . . . and yet this problem of not being able to add refs into groups continues unabated . . . .

Has something been purposefully changed to do this operation or something got lost in the jump up to 5.10???

Sorry for the late reply. You are completely right and unfortunately seemingly found a regression.
I can reproduce this with JabRef 5.10 and also with the newest development version on Windows 10.

Would you mind opening an issue at JabRef’s Github repository for this?

Workaround for now: Select entries via left-click and drag and drop them into the group.

1 Like

Thanks for the reply and the hint . . . the drag and drop did work. I went to the bug report site and tried to file the bug report, but I don’t have time right now to mess with the devel version, I didn’t click either option and I guess it isn’t letting me post the bug report until I do??

Should I just click one of them to get it up in the queue?? Or, do it the right way . . . it might be a few days until I have time to play with upgrading to devel . . . .

OK, I just checked the two boxes declaring I tested the devel . . . without actually doing that. : - ) That posted the bug report.

" Problems adding citations to groups in 5.10 via right-click, as we could before #10404 "

Using Jabref today . . . problem is still persisting . . . checking updates says, “Jabref is up to date”??

Yes, the issue is still open. It’s not yet fixed.
Please keep in mind that we are all working in our leisure time at JabRef for free and therefore it may take some time until it’s fixed.

Edit// I think I found the issue now. A fix is on the way

@esteelpaz Issue is now fixed in the latest development version:
You can download the version for your OS here index - powered by h5ai v0.30.0 (https://larsjung.de/h5ai/)
You probaly need the deb package

1 Like

Thanks for the fast turn around on it. I’ll check it in a bit, today is my usual “research > Jabref” day . . . .

1 Like

So, following up, the adding the citation to the groups by right-click has been repaired, but it does seem like adding citations from Pubmed number is not as “zippy” as it was??? Jabref seems to “think” about it for a minute before it pops into the list?? : - ( : - ))))


glad to hear that it works for your again. Regarding the search, I think you found another issue that I could reproduce and this is fortunately a simple fix

Using Jabref again today with the “devel” edition that was linked, the “right click to add to group” function is fine, but the “adding the citations from Pubmed number” problem seems even slower than it was . . . .

Has that been addressed yet, or still waiting???


the performance has a bit improved. I experience still a slight delay. However, this might be because JabRef is importing and processing the abstract now as well. However, all processing happens in the background and does not lead to a freeze
We could do some performance measurements for sure, but unfortunately, we currently lack the resources (manpower) for this.

Hmmm . . .OK, well, the delay is not a showstopper . . . once it can be seen that something is “happening” . . . it’s just not “in the blink of an eye” . . . it’s “slow.” Usually when I’m adding stuff into my databases, it’s a rush job, long list of Pubmed digest emails to blast through, so the “slowness” is not like the “slow food” experience, where the “slowness” is an enhancement, etc. It’s not helping the “work flow.” It is what it is, “open source” so not grounds to complain . . . but, it was “faster” previously . . . seems like 5.10?? made some changes that didn’t bring “swiftness” into the process??? : - 0

Can’t confirm it, but I believe as long a I’ve been using Jabref . . . couple two/three years, that the abstract has been included in the citation data.

Okay, thanks for the info. I understand that this is hindering you.
I will create an issue for this so we don’t lose track of this and hopefully find the root cause

1 Like

@esteelpaz Good news, we found some tweaks and also switched to a new faster parser library.
My performance analysis indicated that we are now, at least, 100ms faster than before - alone for parsing the result data.
Can you please test this version?

Alrighty, upgraded Jabref to this recent version . . . I ran through my Pubmed digest emails today . . . . Not sure if I could say it is “faster” . . . now that I’ve tried the two recent 5.11 upgrades.

Pasting a Pubmed ID number into the “add entry” box and clicking “generate” and then I counted “one thousand-one,” etc . . . most of the count was “14 seconds” to enter the citation into the database. One of the counts was “22 seconds” AND then after that one the “right-click to add entry to sub-group” function again disappeared. On the next one I drag-dropped into the sub-group. On the following item, back to 14 seconds and right-click was back.

One item I wanted to put into another database; to retrieve it for the main database, the “14 seconds” was again used up, somewhere around 12 seconds the cpu spins up enough to fire the fan up, then a couple seconds later the entry is added . . . however, when I went to add that same number into the other database . . . that was added in “milli-seconds,” back to more the way it was . . . whenever?? : - )

That’s the report . . . still seems a bit “volatile” and not exactly quick???

Please have a look at the https://docs.jabref.org/faq#q-i-have-a-huge-library.-what-can-i-do-to-mitigate-performance-issues.

OK, thanks for the link . . . I don’t think that 5K of citations is considered “huge”?? Is it???

Some of those suggestions I might try to adjust, but some of them I would want . . . busy next week, but I’ll check into it.