When calculating bibType, consider the exact match first

[DmitrySharabin]

Hey there,

Thank you for this excellent library!

There is one issue I'd love to address in this PR. I stumbled on it, trying to parse the following bib item:

@online{eleventy,
  title = {Eleventy Is a Simpler Static Site Generator},
  author = {Leatherman, Zach},
  url = {https://www.11ty.dev/},
  urldate = {2024-07-22}
}

Currently, for this item, the parser returns the post-weblog type since it's the first one for which the following condition is true:

biblatex-csl-converter/src/import/biblatex.ts

Lines 957 to 959 in 1a9c590

	BibTypes[bType]["biblatex"] === biblatexType &&
	(!biblatexSubtype ||
	BibTypes[bType]["biblatex-subtype"] === biblatexSubtype)

However, there is the exact (and expected) match for this bib item among all the supported types:

biblatex-csl-converter/src/const.ts

Lines 1708 to 1731 in 1a9c590

	online: {
	order: 42,
	biblatex: "online",
	csl: "webpage",
	required: ["date", "title", "url"],
	eitheror: ["editor", "author"],
	optional: [
	"abstract",
	"addendum",
	"language",
	"langid",
	"note",
	"organization",
	"pubstate",
	"shorttitle",
	"subtitle",
	"titleaddon",
	"urldate",
	"version",
	"origtitle",
	"annotation",
	"keywords",
	],
	},

It would be nice if we could check for the exact match first (and return the corresponding type if it succeeded) before trying to find the most appropriate type and fall back to misc if everything fails.

What do you think?

[DmitrySharabin]

Hey @johanneswilm,

Is there a chance you still accept PRs? Or is that no longer the case? I'm just asking to understand what I should do next if you don't.

Thanks!

Regards,
Dmitry

[johanneswilm]

@DmitrySharabin You are right. This change makes a lot of sense.

[johanneswilm]

@DmitrySharabin I will accept the change and publish a new version. This library is actively used. It's just one of several libraries I maintain, which is why I don't always get to review PRs right away.

[DmitrySharabin]

I will accept the change and publish a new version.

Thank you, @johanneswilm!

This library is actively used. It's just one of several libraries I maintain, which is why I don't always get to review PRs right away.

I totally get and appreciate it. 🙏

I'd love to propose a couple of additions, but we should probably discuss them in a separate issue.