TABLE OF BIBLIOGRAPHY (isert > indexes and tables > indexes and tables > type: bibliography) is not updated properly after you fill the new ITEM (eg. Author(s) or Chapter or any other) in already inserted BIBLIOGRAPHY RECORD of the BIBLIOGRAPHY DATABASE (tools > bibliography database).
Steps to reproduce (to clarify description):
1. open libreoffice writer and write some text
2. insert the new RECORD into the BIBLIOGRAPHY DATABASE (tools > bibliography database > add new record into the biblio: fill "short name" eg. "test", select type (eg. "book"), "year", and "title". DO NOT fill field eg. "Author(s)". For example you forget (or skip) to fill "Author(s)" by mistake.
3. Close BIBLIOGRAPHY DATABASE window
4. go into the text and insert BIBLIOGRAPHY ENTRY from the BIBLIOGRAPHY DATABASE (insert > indexes and tables > bibliography entry > choose "from bibliography database" > select the name of the bibliography entry "test" in the Short name box > press "Insert")
5. Insert TABLE OF BIBLIOGRAPHY into the end of the document (insert > indexes and tables > indexes and tables > type: bibliography > click OK
6. Now you discover your mistake (author name is missing in the inserted BIBLIOGRAPHY TABLE).
7. add item "Author(s)" in the BIBLIOGRAPHY RECORD (tools > bibliography database > select your RECORD "test" > fill item "Author(s)".
8. Close BIBLIOGRAPHY DATABASE window
9. Update TABLE OF BIBLIOGRAPHY in the document: right click on the TABLE OF BIBLIOGRAPHY > Update Index/Table
10. After that author name is NOT shown (updated) in the TABLE OF BIBLIOGRAPHY (although you added Author(s) name into the BIBLIOGRAPHY RECORD)
11. To be shown the Author name in the updated BIBLIOGRAPHY TABLE, you need to go into the text, delete the BIBLIOGRAPHY ENTRY from the text and insert it once more (repeat step 4). And then repeat step 9.
Neither updating BIBLIOGRAPHY ENTRY in the document (by pressing key F9), nor closing and opening the whole document helps. BIBLIOGRAPHY ENTRY has to be deleted and inserted once more to perform changes.
NO NEW filled item in the BIBLIOGRAPHY RECORD is SHOWN in the TABLE OF BIBLIOGRAPHY after its update.
Filling a new item in the BIBLIOGRAPHY RECORD caused change in the TABLE OF BIBLIOGRAPHY after update.
I am not sure if it is a real bug (maybe it is just a feature) but it is really user UNfriendly mainly in huge document.
Operating System: Ubuntu
Version: 126.96.36.199 release
*** Bug 71675 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 53165 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Marking as NEW per duplicate issues.
(In reply to comment #0)
> I am not sure if it is a real bug (maybe it is just a feature) but it is
> really user UNfriendly mainly in huge document.
I can't agree more. Lets make an enhancement request of this. I can see the use-case of _NOT_ updating it too... But I think it's more needed then non-needed.
As far I understand the code, and what also is mentioned in the Apache
bug: there is no link between the reference field and bibliography database.
While selecting "from bibliography database" when creating a new
reference field (insert > indexes and tables > Bibliography entry...),
the entry selector is pulled from the bibliography database over here:
Since there is no unique ID, there is no link between the reference and
the database, once inserted into the document. Conclusion: there has to
be an _hidden_ unique key. Hidden because users may not change this
unique key manually (and thus break the linkage). To prevent
automatically updating for certain entries, a checkbox needs to be
Probably a part of this code
can be re-used, to update the field. This code is currently used to
modify the reference field
when you manually edit the reference data inside your document (double
click on the field -> edit).
Anyone interested :)?
*** Bug 72933 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
The problem seems even worse:
Not being able to update would be "ok" if I could at least insert a new bib index. But this works only in parts: new used entries are added (as if one would update the old index), but already used and changed entries not. So there is no way to update the bib index totally at all.
Ways to reproduce:
1. Open a document with somy bibliography entries and a bibliography index
2. Change anything in the bibliography database
3. Optional: remove bibliography index
4. Insert bibliography entry
New entries show up
Old entries stay the same
All changed entries are updated
If i remove any entry in the text, update the index and then add it and update again, it is updated.
Adding self to CC if not already on
(In reply to Alex Thurgood from comment #8)
> Adding self to CC if not already on
I just added bug #90641. Maybe something interesting related to comment #5?
6 years later bug still remains.
It would be better to drop all the bibliography features, than live with that.
I wouldn't spend so many hours to manually inserting over 40 of bibliography entries if I new that I cannot update it :(
(In reply to Mieszko from comment #10)
> 6 years later bug still remains.
> It would be better to drop all the bibliography features, than live with
> I wouldn't spend so many hours to manually inserting over 40 of bibliography
> entries if I new that I cannot update it :(
If you are a heavy bibliography user you may give Zotero or Mendeley a try. See also https://design.blog.documentfoundation.org/2018/12/19/save-the-bibliography/
I agree with Mieszko's observation that it would be better to remove Bibliography functionality entirely from LibreOffice Writer. I have spent -many- days on both the database and the embedded version and concluded that the first one has many bugs, the second one has usability issues. These issues have existed for many years.
Heiko's observation is also appropriate. I have started to use Zotero, which is very advanced compared to the current LibreOffice Bibliography features and will be hard to catch up on.
If the functionality is removed, then this could be reflected in the online help and documentation by recommending Zotero (I have not tried Medeley)?
Well, I'm not a heavy bibliography user - I'm writing my master thesis I do not plan to write such texts in the future. And if I really had to - I would write in LaTeX and spend some time to learn BibLaTeX rather than BibTeX due to limited options of the latter.
I've had a look to Zotero and Mendeley webpages, but currently decided to insert all bibliography manually in LO, rather than learning another system and inserting info there.
Such simple bibliography system in LO will be nice to people like me, but it there is no plan for base support, then it should be removed.
To sum up, my end-user advice is:
1. please fix this bug (and other), polish the UX for the basic stuf (like the first Ricardo says in the first comment from https://design.blog.documentfoundation.org/2018/12/19/save-the-bibliography/
There is no need for heavy rebuilding the whole stuff: advanced people will use Zotero or another plugins.
2. If there is *really* no time for simple fixes OR there is horrible spaghetti code that nobody want to touch: remove biblio
(In reply to Ben from comment #12)
> I agree with Mieszko's observation that it would be better to remove
> Bibliography functionality entirely from LibreOffice Writer. I have spent
> -many- days on both the database and the embedded version and concluded that
> the first one has many bugs, the second one has usability issues. These
> issues have existed for many years.
> Heiko's observation is also appropriate. I have started to use Zotero, which
> is very advanced compared to the current LibreOffice Bibliography features
> and will be hard to catch up on.
> If the functionality is removed, then this could be reflected in the online
> help and documentation by recommending Zotero (I have not tried Medeley)?
I agree with every single word.
No software is developed in a vacuum, and in the current context the power of Zotero is unparalleled. There is no shame in admitting that a dedicated suite can do a better job in a niche area. Better embrace the situation and use resources strategically.
If dropping bibliography altogether saves resources in code developing and bug-tracking, go for it!
There actually seems to be one identifier that links the entry with the database, and it's the "identifier" field, which has to be unique to each database entry, and if you copy and paste text that contains references to a blank database-less odt document, sillily, the identifier is copied and not the reference number.
I'm using version 188.8.131.52, and while still a buggy mess, it isn't absolutely hopeless, after updating the database, removing and adding several entries, everything gets gradually fixed by itself.
The most annoying thing is repeated entry numbers, which I have to deal one by one, deleting and reinserting.
Another annoying "feature" is that you cannot search the entries in the text, a workaround is that you can copy to a plain text application and then search to find offending entries, because the reference number and not the identifier is copied to plain text (maybe "paste special" would work?). Arghhh, everything seems fine now, finally, after a long bug wading journey.
The technique I used to clear all the problems was:
I created a dummy book in the database.
Then I inserted the dummy book entry after the end of my document and right before the bibliography table.
(My bibliography was sorted according to type of document (article, book, www, etc.) and then by the title of the document.)
To force a reset I edit the entry (right click on the text entry/reference, not in the database) and change the type of document from "www document" to "book" and the title from zzz to aaa, so that it's moved from the top to the bottom of the bibliography table and then vice-versa, each time updating the table. Seemingly, that forces the table to be rebuilt and clears the repeats and updates to the changes made in the database.
That makes me think that all the functions necessary to get the bibliography updated correctly are in place, and that those aren't being called. I don't know what is the mess in the code, but should not be impossible to fix and the feature should be kept and just improved.
Changing priority back to 'medium' since the number of duplicates is lower than 5