Year showing in bibtexparser 0.5.5 but not 0.6

[sciunto-org]

Year showing in bibtexparser 0.5.5 but not 0.6

[gpoo]

It is not only the year, it can be any last field without a coma at the end. That coma is optional in BibTeX, but somehow the version 0.6 is not considering as optional.

[gpoo]

The regression was introduced in commit 19bca81

According to BibTex summary:

two fields must be separated by a coma, but the coma after the last field of an entry is optional;

Easier to notice if year is the last field, and without curly brackets (which are not mandatory for this field).

[gpoo]

Meh... it seems I confused two different issues. Sorry about the noise. In the case of this issue, the regression seems to be introduced in commit b2d022b

[gpoo]

The problem is in the line 46.

@inproceedings{amos2013applying,
title={Applying machine learning classifiers to dynamic Android
malware detection at scale},
author={Amos, Brandon and Turner, Hamilton and White, Jules},
booktitle={IWCMC'13 Security, Trust and Privacy Symposium},
year={2013}
}
% Articles.
@article{amos2014QNSTOP,
title={{QNSTOP-QuasiNewton Algorithm for Stochastic Optimization}},
author={Brandon Amos and David Easterling and Layne Watson and
William Thacker and Brent Castle and Michael Trosset},
journal={},
year={submitted},
keywords={journal}
}

If you remove %Articles., then the year is printed correctly. Comments should be written as:

@comment{Articles.}

[sciunto]

Many thanks to both of you. I'll try to have a look asap.

[bamos]

Hi, thanks @gpoo for noticing I had incorrect comments in my BibTeX file.
I've corrected these and bibtexparser 0.6 is working well now.

[gpoo]

Nevertheless, the parser can ignore them or send a warning. If BibTex compiles, then a parser could honor that.

[sciunto]

I agree with gpoo. The commit that fixed bamos' bibtex bamos/cv@b0bd6b5#diff-6a584f12d8a9d2773171142f50537bb3

[gpoo]

Still the parser could ignore it, or complain that something is wrong with the formatting, instead of skipping one entry. The entries themselves are syntactically correct, it is just garbage in between.

[sciunto]

TODO: check is solved by #64

[sciunto]

Fixed by #64