Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

bulk merge stops merging on "Merged items must all be of the same item type" error #5

Open
axb21 opened this issue May 6, 2022 · 0 comments

Comments

@axb21
Copy link

axb21 commented May 6, 2022

First of all, thank you for this plugin. It has been a life saver for me so far. I have about 1800 duplicates in my Zotero library that I have no intention of de-duplicating manually, and it's always frustrated me that Zotero did not have a bulk de-duplication feature.

Anyway, I wanted to report something I've observed, and request a behavior change.

When I run Duplicates Manager => Bulk merge duplicates in the Duplicate Items view, it will happily chug along merging duplicates but then get stuck whenever there are two items it detects to be duplicates that are of different types (article versus book, for instance). This is pretty frustrating behavior, because it happens every 50 items or so. Rather than having most of my 1800 duplicates repaired for me, I still have to intervene manually.

What I'd prefer happen is that the plugin simply skip these cases and continue. That way It will merge the items it knows how to merge, and I can manually figure out the rest. It's still useful because it decreases the level of manual work I need to do by 50-fold, and it does not have to solve the AI-complete problem of figuring out what to do with these difficult cases. In my particular instance, many of these difficult cases are junk that somehow made it into my library and I can just delete them, so there is no reason to figure out how to merge them or get hung up on them.

Bonus points if it can auto-tag the duplicates it doesn't know what to do with so that I know I've run the plugin on them and it gave up.

If the current behavior is intentional, perhaps there could be an option to perform the logic I outlined above if that option is selected.

Thanks!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant