# Recent citation regressions #959

Closed
opened this Issue Mar 14, 2018 · 7 comments

Projects
None yet
3 participants
Contributor

### bfirsh commented Mar 14, 2018

 Sometime in e14e9f0..d18cdad we're seeing some regressions for \cite. In integration-tests/bibliography/basic.tex the citation text is missing - just getting [] in the output In integration-tests/bibliography/inline_3line.tex the brackets are doubled up, so they come out like [[1]] The files are missing \documentclass{article}, but I'm seeing the same problem with that added at the top.

Collaborator

### dginev commented Mar 14, 2018 • edited

 Thanks for the report! Since this could well be executable-specific, could you let me know the exact commands you ran to reproduce? Can reproduce, taking a look
Collaborator

### dginev commented Mar 14, 2018

 @brucemiller looks like switching from #refnum to #frefnum broke conversions that have a .bbl file? change at: c768661#diff-73d02df95f8342da0c0bc9a260d230d7R2906 The bbl content in question for this example is: \begin{thebibliography}{28} \bibitem[{Bloggs and Jones(2014)}]{bloggs2014} Joe Bloggs and Phil Jones. 2014. \newblock Compositional morphology for word representations and language modelling. \newblock In \emph{Proceedings of ICML}. \bibitem[{Cotterell and Sch{\"u}tze(2015)}]{cotterell2015morphological} Ryan Cotterell and Hinrich Sch{\"u}tze. 2015. \newblock Morphological word-embeddings. \newblock In \emph{Proceedings of HLT-NAACL}. \bibitem[{Foo and Bar(2020)}]{foobar2020} Foo and Bar. 2020. \newblock Just a title, not a source. \end{thebibliography} The generated intermediate XML has empty elements for refnum, here are the relevant snippets: [] and the bibitem:  ...
Owner

### brucemiller commented Mar 14, 2018

 Hmm... surprised any of this stuff got out already, but big set of patches coming soon which should fix this again.
Collaborator

### dginev commented Mar 15, 2018

 "surprised any of this stuff got out already" This is what happens when people use latexml in production :> Maybe we should up our test coverage?
Contributor

### bfirsh commented Mar 15, 2018

 Awesome, thanks! One of my current projects is producing a set of tex files that cover as much functionality as I can find. It’ll then compares the HTML output with known good HTML as an integration test. Happy to work together on that, if you’d like.

Owner

### brucemiller commented Apr 7, 2018 • edited by dginev

 The 2 links above gave 404's, so maybe the arrangement of test cases has changed. I have checked the bbl that @dginev posted and this should be fixed now. Thanks for the report & test cases!

Contributor

### bfirsh commented Apr 7, 2018

 Oops yes sorry should have sent absolute github URLs. Thanks for the fix!

Closed