Remove three duplicate bibliography entries so the .bib parses at all#204
Merged
Conversation
pybtex refuses to parse a bibliography containing a repeated key, and this file
has carried three of them — GilboaSchmeidler:1989, Whittle_1981 and Whittle_1990
each appear twice, once indented in the main body and once unindented near the
end. The two copies of each are byte-identical apart from leading whitespace.
The effect is total rather than local: `parse_file` raises
`BibliographyDataError: repeated bibliography entry` and no bibliography is
built, so *every* {cite} in the edition fails to resolve. That is what the
"could not find bibtex key" warnings on #202 actually are — the keys are present
in the file, but nothing ever parsed it. The 70 entries backfilled in #203 were
correct and could never have taken effect while this stood.
Predates #203: the same three duplicates and the same parse error are present at
693aa63, before that PR.
Verified: pybtex now parses 480 entries, and all 61 keys the #202 build reported
missing resolve, as do the three formerly-duplicated ones.
Removes the later copy of each; the earlier copy in the main body is kept.
✅ Deploy Preview for astonishing-narwhal-a8fc64 ready!
To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify project configuration. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Pull request overview
This PR fixes a hard BibTeX parsing failure by removing three duplicate bibliography entries (duplicate keys) from the shared bibliography file so downstream tooling (e.g., pybtex) can successfully parse the bibliography and resolve citations across the book.
Changes:
- Remove the duplicate entries for
GilboaSchmeidler:1989,Whittle_1981, andWhittle_1990fromlectures/_static/quant-econ.bib. - Ensure each of the three keys appears exactly once in the bibliography so parsing no longer fails.
💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
pybtexrefuses to parse a bibliography containing a repeated key, and this file has carried three of them.GilboaSchmeidler:1989,Whittle_1981andWhittle_1990each appear twice — once indented in the main body, once unindented near the end — and the two copies of each are byte-identical apart from leading whitespace.The effect is total, not local
parse_fileraises, no bibliography is built, and every{cite}in the edition fails to resolve. That is what thecould not find bibtex keywarnings on #202 actually are: the keys are present in the file, and nothing ever parsed it.This also means the 70 entries backfilled in #203 were correct but could never have taken effect. #202 would have stayed red no matter how many entries were added.
It predates #203
The same three duplicates and the same parse error are present at
693aa63, before that PR. Confirmed by parsing that blob directly.Why it went unnoticed is worth recording: a duplicate key is invisible to the obvious checks. A
grep -c '^@'count is unaffected, braces stay balanced, and a^@-anchored duplicate scan misses it entirely because one copy of each pair is indented. It only surfaces when something actually parses the file with a real BibTeX parser.Verification
pybtexparseRemoves the later copy of each; the earlier copy in the main body is kept.
🤖 Generated with Claude Code