Skip to content

Add initial search requirements#14633

Merged
koppor merged 2 commits into
mainfrom
add-search-requirements
Dec 22, 2025
Merged

Add initial search requirements#14633
koppor merged 2 commits into
mainfrom
add-search-requirements

Conversation

@koppor

@koppor koppor commented Dec 17, 2025

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Triggered by #14632

The vision is to collect relevant issues and sort them into requirements.

This is a first step to provide a file skeleton.

This is contrary to #13851, which collects the requirements from the user documentation (https://docs.jabref.org/finding-sorting-and-cleaning-entries/search.

Mandatory checks

  • I own the copyright of the code submitted and I license it under the MIT license
  • [/] I manually tested my changes in running JabRef (always required)
  • [/] I added JUnit tests for changes (if applicable)
  • [/] I added screenshots in the PR description (if change is visible to the user)
  • [/] I described the change in CHANGELOG.md in a way that is understandable for the average user (if change is visible to the user)
  • [/] I checked the user documentation: Is the information available and up to date? If not, I created an issue at https://github.com/JabRef/user-documentation/issues or, even better, I submitted a pull request updating file(s) in https://github.com/JabRef/user-documentation/tree/main/en.

@koppor koppor requested a review from subhramit December 17, 2025 09:32
@koppor koppor added dev: code-quality Issues related to code or architecture decisions component: search labels Dec 17, 2025
Comment thread docs/requirements/search.md Outdated
---
# Search

This page collects requirements on the search.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

What could be a more specific phrase? library search? entry search? maintable search?

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

is maintable a user-facing word?

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think as this is located in devdocs, i think we can be less strict here

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Good point, Renamed the file and added some more text.

@calixtus calixtus marked this pull request as draft December 20, 2025 11:14
@koppor koppor requested a review from subhramit December 20, 2025 11:46
@koppor koppor marked this pull request as ready for review December 20, 2025 11:46
@koppor koppor added the status: ready-for-review Pull Requests that are ready to be reviewed by the maintainers label Dec 20, 2025
@koppor koppor merged commit d93a0bb into main Dec 22, 2025
60 of 68 checks passed
@koppor koppor deleted the add-search-requirements branch December 22, 2025 22:34
@koppor koppor removed the status: ready-for-review Pull Requests that are ready to be reviewed by the maintainers label Dec 22, 2025
Siedlerchr added a commit that referenced this pull request Dec 23, 2025
* main:
  Update AI usage policy (#14698)
  Fix handling of DOIs (#14704)
  Handle ohter CrossRef response (#14696)
  Fix condition for processing closed issues/PRs
  Translate the English "change to Chinese(simplified)" to the Chinese in the warning dialog (#14690)
  More performance optimization (#14695)
  Add missing dot (and a link)
  Add link to PR template also if checklist is present, but not OK (#14694)
  Fix typo in IntelliJ code style instructions (#14693)
  Add import into new library to Welcome Tab (#14669)
  Add initial search requirements (#14633)
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

component: search dev: code-quality Issues related to code or architecture decisions

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants