This pull requests was closed without merging. You have been unassigned from the respective issue #14645.

Implementation looks good. Was not aware of the "info" at dialog service. Let's see how the user feedback will be.

@NiMv1 Is it possible to add en entry to CHANGELOG.md? "Changed" and that notifications will be logged in debug mode only? Link https://docs.jabref.org/advanced/commandline#debug-mode-debug.

(I post this as this endeavour is for learning open source, not just implementing sth.)

@NiMv1 Seeing your PRs to other orgs, we need to check whether you are personally interested in scientific research. If yes, we should try to bring you deeper into JabRef. If not, we should give this opportunity to someone else.

@koppor Thank you for the feedback and for approving the PR!

Regarding the CHANGELOG.md - I've added the entry as requested. The CI check 'CHANGELOG.md needs to be modified if indicated' seems to be from an older workflow run.

About scientific research - I appreciate you asking! While my primary focus is on backend development and distributed systems (as you can see from my other contributions), I do find bibliography management and academic tools interesting. I'm happy to contribute to JabRef when I can help with issues that match my skills.

I understand if you prefer to prioritize contributors who are more deeply involved in scientific research. Either way, I'm glad this PR could help improve the logging behavior.

Thank you for the learning opportunity!

One CI check is failing due to repo permission limitations: 'Ensure that contributor is assigned'. The workflow tries to add @NiMv1 as an assignee to issue #14645 (which is labeled 'good first issue'), but GitHub API responds with 422 (invalid assignee) for external contributors. Could a maintainer please assign @NiMv1 to #14645 (or otherwise adjust the issue labels) so this check can pass?

Heads-up: the check 'Ensure that contributor is assigned' failed due to a GitHub API network timeout (dial tcp ...:443: i/o timeout) while PATCHing issue #14645. Looks like a transient CI/network flake. Could you please re-run the failed check/workflow? Thanks!

@NiMv1 Thank you for your feedback. This is on the point. Highly appreciated. Maye, you could dive into #12261? Maybe, this is too large for now and you search for "quick wins", then just have look at good second issues.

@NiMv1 I think this issue could be good #10930 - You can check the comments on the closed PR #14252 if some refinement is needed.