I am on MacOS Big Sur if it makes any difference. Soon to upgrade to Monterey…
> On 18 Sep 2024, at 02:49, Luc Bourhis <[email protected]> wrote: > > Here is a screen capture. > > <Screenshot 2024-09-18 at 02.48.31.png> > >> On 17 Sep 2024, at 16:16, Christiaan Hofman <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> Are you sure you are talking about the date-added? There has not changed >> anything for many years for this, the filters work just the same as they >> have done since 2006. >> >> There was a bug fix in 1.9.4 with the modified-date, where we erroneously >> compared the date-added instead for some functions. Perhaps this is what you >> are thinking of? >> >> Apart from that, I don’t see what you describe. What kind of condition do >> you use? When I use a condition with a date range, I see that a missing >> date-added is not included in the smart group. What I see is that a start >> date is always considered true, and an end date is always false when a >> date-added is missing. Tris has always been the case. Perhaps this logic may >> not be the best though. >> >> Christiaan >> >>> On 17 Sep 2024, at 13:09, Luc Bourhis via Bibdesk-users >>> <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> I use Smart Folders with different ranges of date-added. It used to work >>> fine but I have just noticed that Bibdesk 1.9.5 treats missing date-added >>> as matching ones. This might have started in earlier versions: I did not >>> pay attention. By “missing”, I mean that the column “Added” in the central >>> list display has an empty entry. >>> >>> Best wishes, >>> >>> Luc J Bourhis >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Bibdesk-users mailing list >> [email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]> >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bibdesk-users >
_______________________________________________ Bibdesk-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bibdesk-users
