Jabref: ID-based entry generator using DOIs incorrectly populates date field

[moewew]

JabRef version JabRef 4.0.0-dev--snapshot--2017-06-15--master--31b345e00
on Windows 10 10.0 amd64 Java 1.8.0_121

Steps to reproduce:

1. Open JabRef
2. New biblatex library
3. New entry (Ctrl+N)
4. Use ID-based entry generator from DOI, say 10.1086/261527
5. Generate
6. Find that the date field is (incorrectly) populated with the current date (2017-06-15) and not the entry date (1988), the field year is correctly populated with 1988.

Ideally JabRef would use the date field instead of year and month in biblatex mode. But that might be something to fix on the side of the info provider, not JabRef.

Generated .bib file

@Article{Bollerslev1988, author = {Tim Bollerslev and Robert F. Engle and Jeffrey M. Wooldridge}, title = {A Capital Asset Pricing Model with Time-Varying Covariances}, journal = {Journal of Political Economy}, year = {1988}, date = {2017-06-15}, volume = {96}, number = {1}, month = {feb}, pages = {116--131}, doi = {10.1086/261527}, publisher = {University of Chicago Press}, }

[moewew]

A bit more playing around revealed that this is a more general problem. In fact all entries added have the date field populated with the current date by default. I have to explicitly overwrite the date when creating a new entry.

Naturally 'Mark new entries with addition date' is unchecked. (The designated field is timestamp and not date anyway.)

[Siedlerchr]

Thanks for your report. In biblatex, the year is an alias of date for background compatibility with bibtex. So this is definitely a bug of the new entry editor
Could you please try if the clean up operation convert to biblatex mode then writes the year field into the date field? (I doubt it, but worth checking)

[moewew]

The 'Quality -> Cleanup entries' did not help, unfortunately.

While year is a backwards compatibility alias for date, the accepted formats are different.

[Siedlerchr]

I tried to investigate this a bit more and found that this is a problem with the Binding of the datefield.
I don't know why but in the method bindToEntryin the AbstractEditorViewModel the consumer newValue has the actual date when the fieldName is the date field.

I can only speculate that this oviously has sth to do with the year field set, because for other fields it does not aplly.
@tobiasdiez Any idea where I have to look?

[tobiasdiez]

This should be fixed in the latest development version. Could you please check the build from http://builds.jabref.org/master/. Thanks!

[moewew]

The bug indeed seems to be fixed in the new dev builds. Thank you very much.