Poor error output in bibliography issue about vimtex

[lervag]

So I've had a longstanding issue with poor error and warning representation (see here) compared to non-vim options.

Notice, I did respond to that issue, but I didn't see any immediate ways to react to it to improve VimTeX. Sorry. I'm closing it as I think the current issue is a better way to address things.

I think the only way to solve such issues is to report errors as they arise.

Yes, I agree.

Here is the unhelpful vimtex output: …

Here is the much more helpful Overleaf output: …

Just to be clear: Overleaf is good. I agree. But Overleaf is software developed by a team of engineers that are being payed. VimTeX is developed by me in my spare time. I'll not be able to make VimTeX as good as Overleaf on things like this. Sorry.

Still, I will do my best and will attempt to improve things that seem doable without too much work.

The vimtex error reporting only: …

• notes a very unhelpful reference to the bibliography style file. Can we modify the error reporting to note this issue?

• I also want to remark how the Overleaf reporting has collated all the important errors to the top, and then stylised them in a very clear way (a red box). Obviously some of this might not be as relevant to vim users, but I think it is rather important.

Notice that VimTeX relies on the errorformat feature in Vim/Neovim and using that to parse the .log file(s). LaTeX log files are hard to parse, and in this case, the problem is actually only described in the additional bibtex log files - which has it's own weird syntax. VimTeX does parse these as well, but again, not at all perfectly.

With issue reports like this one, it is possible to improve things. So feel free to open more of them. That will help me make things better one thing at a time. ;)

[ThSGM]

Hi! Just to be clear because I think tone and intention can get lost, especially through the internet. I was of course not speaking in any critical tone about workload and contributions, but just rather puzzling over what makes one experience better or worse. So I’m trying to puzzle that out, I’m naturally comparing vimtex to other offerings.

That’s definitely not a criticism of “why can’t you do this or that!”

I think everybody recognised just how much unpaid work goes into these things. We definitely appreciate it and I did not mean my post in the way it might have been interpreted.

[lervag]

Thanks; yes, tone and intention does tend to get lost in written language. In your post, I think the wording "unhelpful" and in the title "poor error output" is somewhat offputting. It may be true, but I'm constantly trying to have VimTeX be helpful and not poor.

In any case, I didn't really interprate you as rude and I didn't think you had bad intentions. But I was somewhat triggered and felt a need to express that I'm doing my best, but that it is not always enough. ;)

Still, I think your issue has helped improve VimTeX. I hope you'll still post new issues, e.g. on the present topic of error parsing. I think it is one of the topics where it is clearly some possibilities of improving things. But it does rely on concrete and simple examples.