Add doc tests

[koppor]

This adds test cases mirroring our documentation at https://docs.jabref.org/finding-sorting-and-cleaning-entries/search#general-syntax.

Currently, fails, because the search requires "RegEx" to be enabled, even if the search term does not contain any regex (and the help doesn't demand either).

Either this needs to be solved or #8206 be finished (with the decisions there).

• Change in CHANGELOG.md described in a way that is understandable for the average user (if applicable)
• Tests created for changes (if applicable)
• Manually tested changed features in running JabRef (always required)
• Screenshots added in PR description (for UI changes)
• 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.

[Siedlerchr]

The doc clearly says that RegEx has to be enabled!

[koppor]

The doc clearly says that RegEx has to be enabled!

Oh, wow. Very strange expectation, isn't it?

[Siedlerchr]

I think in older versions this was named "advanced search mode"

[koppor]

Added RegEx. anykeyword and anyfield still not working

[koppor]

I disabled the non-working tests.

Proposal: Merge and then get this running the context of #8206

[Siedlerchr]

Can you add a test for #8287

[koppor]

Not now. Can we do that as follow-up?

[ThiloteE]

What i reported in #8287 is annoying and i think being able to search for a whole sentence rather than a single word would be something that should be within the standard repertoire of Jabrefs search syntax (grouping words together into a single phrase for exact matches) but at the same time for me personally it is not an issue that i would deem urgent at the moment.

If you are thinking about implementing a whole new search syntax (Lucene) and Lucene would be better than what we currently have (i don't know enough about the current search syntax and Lucene to make this call), then implementing Lucene should be considered to precede issue #8287.