Fix for #8645: Refactor of empty entry handling

[xiaoyanghuo]

Fixes #8645

This is group14 from the course "Open Source Development".

• [x] Change in CHANGELOG.md described in a way that is understandable for the average user (if applicable)
• [x] Tests created for changes (if applicable)
• [x] Manually tested changed features in running JabRef (always required)
• [x] Screenshots added in PR description (for UI changes)
• [ ] Checked developer's documentation: Is the information available and up to date? If not, I outlined it in this pull request.
• [ ] Checked 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 to the documentation repository.

[ThiloteE]

Thank you for your contribution :-)

To ease organizational workflows I have linked the pull-request to the issue with syntax as described in https://docs.github.com/en/issues/tracking-your-work-with-issues/linking-a-pull-request-to-an-issue

Linking a pull request to an issue using a keyword

You can link a pull request to an issue by using a supported keyword in the pull request's description or in a commit message. The pull request must be on the default branch.

• close
• closes
• closed
• fix
• fixes
• fixed
• resolve
• resolves
• resolved

If you use a keyword to reference a pull request comment in another pull request, the pull requests will be linked. Merging the referencing pull request also closes the referenced pull request.

The syntax for closing keywords depends on whether the issue is in the same repository as the pull request.

[xiaoyanghuo]

Although what we submitted was about that issue(#8645), it had flaws. Because we don't understand this task very well, we didn't find the relevant dialog in debugging。

[ThiloteE]

Although what we submitted was about that issue(#8645), it had flaws. Because we don't understand this task very well, we didn't find the relevant dialog in debugging。

This sub-task is referring to code introduced by https://github.com/JabRef/jabref/pull/8218, which is probably best to be removed, once the new implementation works well.

[xiaoyanghuo]

Thank you for your attention!

[koppor]

A follow-up PR should REALLY add a test case for the BibTeX shown in https://github.com/JabRef/jabref/issues/8645

[calixtus]

I personally am against the change of the default value, since a user might just want to test JabRef and would not expect JabRef to change all of his entries by default when saving again. Looking for the right pref option is just annoying for first time users.

Also this PR does not fix the fundamental issue about empty entries

[calixtus]

Test could be reused though.

[ThiloteE]

@xiaoyanghuo thank you and your group for this pr, I hope you have learned something from it.

Closing this pr, because as far as I can see, it is in an incomplete state, there is inactivity and I would like to reduce the number of open pull-requests. Feel free to reopen, if you ever feel like wanting to continue working on it.