Unify month field formatting in test bib files

[Siedlerchr]

In several bib files we have not a unique formatting for the month:

Example:
Some bib files used for testing have different formats for the months.
This should be made consistent across all files

correct;

  number    = {1},
  pages     = {55--68},
  month     = oct,

other looks like

  number    = {1},
  pages     = {55--68},
  month     = #oct#,

other looks like

  number    = {1},
  pages     = {55--68},
  month     =  {#oct#},

[vitorcime]

Do you know where can I find this bibs files ?

[koppor]

@vitorcime Use your IDE's search capability. Ctrl+Shift+F in IntelliJ.

[koppor]

Note that # is used to render a BibTeX string (see http://help.jabref.org/en/EntryEditor#field-consistency-checking). That means, the entry editor displays #oct# when the BibTeX field is month = oct. Thus, oct is correct. #oct# and {#oct#} are wrong. They are a result of a wrong implementation somewhere in JabRef. We guess that it is at the entry fetchers or converters (RIS for instance).

[PorcelainMouse]

I think this is related to another issue. The "cleanup entries" implements a "normalize" option on the month field, but converts to abbreviated month, which is not supported by python-bibtexparser (by default). Also, JabRef writes this field as an integer, not a string, when set from the GUI pull-down field. So, the code is is not consistent, either.

Is this the right issue? Or, should I open another one?