The settings (including the template) are stored in data.json (in the folder where you saved the plugin files). if you copy the updated main.js and manifest.json, the settings should not be over-written. To be on the safe side, I would recommend copying and pasting that template in a note
1 Like
thanks. I know this is not the place for formal bug reports - I am actually going to setup a git hub just to help test this plugin - however I noticed that with the 'minimalist theme" there is a UI issue with a blank box displaying when the 'update library" command is issued
I made a note of that. Thank you
I had wished to do exactly this, but my incompetency with programming made me leave Zotero as an option all together. I did write a python program, but it wasn’t half as good.
Thanks for this plugin. I might have a few suggests/feature requests down the line, which I am sure would be considered for discussion 
I love the new feature trailer you shared about the images! Would wait for it.
I hope there won’t be breaking changes in the near future, as I am moving in with all my bagpack into Zotero just because of this plugin 
PS: If you can include, please include {{publisher}} into the note-title options. Most of my materials are clubbed as per publishers.
Ran into error. Could import the BibTex Json but couldn’t create a literature note.
Shows a success notification, but there is no file to be found anywhere across the vault.
The console suggests that no such file or directory, open
I have noticed tags in admonition code blocks do not appear to be added to file metadata
eg for tag queries, data view plugin tag searches, file.tags does not report them etc
any workaround for this? (I realise may be admonition-specific)
yes, it’s best to submit an issue on the admonition’s github regarding this
If you are moving to zotero, these two plugins will also be really helpful:
1 Like
I have release a new update to this plugin (v.09). There are a lot of changes introduced in this version, so please take a look at the changelog.
The only quasi-breaking changes is that the annotations from the PDF are not extracted automatically but you will need to add to your note the field {{PDFNotes}}
1 Like
Thanks and congrats this is great news!
Can I ask - I am playing with the {{keywords}} (which is called “tags” in Zotero
is there any way to make multiple items in this string parse into Obsidian as normal #tags?
Yes, I have added that feature in the last release. try to put #{{keywords}} in the template and let me know if it works as expected
@stpag I’m experimenting with the latest version (Ubuntu, Obsidian 0.13.21), and I have two issues:
- the search is really slow, with a 6K items library
- if I try to create a note - judging from the console, it successfully pulls in data from zotero, but then fails to write it in obsidian, with “Error: ENOENT: no such file or directory, open path/to/file.md” (without slash in the start of the path). That happens even if the file in question exists.
Brilliant - yes it works - this is a game changer for me!
some little bugs and things I have found
- toggling 'extract annotations" on and off hides some preferences it shouldn’t eg update library preferences (this may be intentional)
- the “missing fields”/ remove entire row preference does not work as expected when using the Microsoft style admonition syntax. The reason I use this is that tags are properly assigned to the file allowing obsidian search and data view to find them (which does not occur if they are within a code block)
so my template looks like this:
[!quote: Abstract]
{{abstractNote}}
however only the > {{abstractNote}} line is removed leaving the blank header.
ideally this option should be modified to remove the entire quote block if ALL the lines in a block are removed due to being absent
.just some thoughts!
Could you please open an issue on GitHub and post there the results from the console? I do not have access to a Linux build so I did not get a chance to test it on that system.
Regarding the speed issue, I will investigate that further. Is the delay to show the possible sources or in processing one once you have confirmed the selection?
The missing field/remove entire row literally remove only the row with the placeholder. I have added some code that removes the entire admonition block when this looks exactly the one in the template. I would have to think about ways to detect an empty admonition block (independently on its colour/title/settings)
I am not a programmer but what about something like “if the line above the removed row contains certain character then remove it too”?
@stag will open the issue for saving files. Happy to help to test!
Speed-wise: the loading of the search interface is noticeably slow (over 5 seconds, triggers “violation” in console), and the search is unusably slow (about a minute to search for two input terms).
Ok, that is bad.
I’ve been testing it with a json file that includes 3000 sources and it is 7MB, and this happens pretty much without delay. But in an early version of the plugin, a different parser took 8 seconds to process the same among of references. How big is the file?
I will need to consult with more experienced programmers to see what can be done
Wow, it’s 18.5 mb 
I tried just now to slash it just for testing. But a 5.5 mb subset is still uncomfortably slow to search on my system.
I will investigate whether something can be done to initially parse only certain fields require to select the source instead of the entire file, but honestly that is at the moment beyond my current programming knowledge
1 Like