How to change/convert the format of a timestamp?
-
@Eko-palypse thanks. I’ll give it a try.
-
@Eko-palypse Worked like a charm! Thank you very much!
Now I need to analyze this and figure it out how it was done.
-
this is quite easy.
editor is a object exposed by pythonscript plugin which can manipulate the scintilla component used by notepad++.
rereplace is the method which allows to have the first parameter being a regular expression and
the second parameter being a function which is called for each match of the regex.The function change_format gets the match object in variable m
As no regular expression matching group has been defined everything should be accessible in group 0.
parts = m.group(0).split(':')
split what has been reported in match object by colon and return a list in variable parts
min = int(parts[0])
take the first element in that list and convert it to an integer, save it in variable min
if min > 60:
if min greater than 60 we need to do something, if not else branch gets executed
real_minute = min % 60
real_minute will get the remainder of division by 60
hours = min / 60
hours the result of division by 60
return '{:02}:{:02}:{}'.format(hours, real_minute, parts[1])
return the new string.
:02means that we want to have it in two digit format 1->01 but 10->10 …
That’s it. -
@Eko-palypse said:
That’s it.
Well…you didn’t explain the
elsepart, and that’s where I have a question. I would do it this way and I don’t know why you did it differently:return '{}:{}'.format(*parts)I just had the thought that it would be nice if
editor.rereplace()would take a replace function returningNoneas a signal to not do any replacement. -
you are absolutely correct - this survived the test when having hh::mm::ss::msec :-)
But python slicing is rescuing me :-DI don’t understand the none return - I mean, why would you want to replace something with None
where None means don’t replace anything? Which case do you have in mind? -
Maybe I misunderstood the intent of the return line I called out. I was thinking that it is simply putting back together the original text but I didn’t look at the OP’s data or problem description all that closely. I guess you would have returned m.group(0) if that were the case.
Anyway, a replace function could have some logic that in certain cases it would not change the original text. Returning None (or even, gasp, falling off the end of the function without returning anything) could be that signal. I certainly did not try editor.rereplace() in that manner, maybe it already works that way.
-
actually I’m trying to avoid function lookups as those are expensive, especially when it involves
Python->C->Python conversion. But I must admit, in this case I don’t think that I gain any performance improvement, it might be even slower. Let’s test it. Will come back. -
Okay…so I didn’t follow any of that, but I look forward to the come back. :)
-
so it is still a little bit faster - to be honest, haven’t expected it.
looped 1000 times over the same text
16.7720000744 <-- return m.group(0)
16.6819999218 <- return ‘{}:{}’.format(*parts[:]) -
My two comments would be:
if min > 60:= if the data is60:00.000, it wouldn’t change. Make itif min >=60:- If the OP (or someone else) has mixed data, or had partially changed them, and came back later and tried the same script, weird stuff will happen. I’d recommend:
editor.rereplace('(?<![:\d])\d+:\d+\.\d+',change_format), which adds a negative lookbehind to not match if there’s a colon or another digit before the \d+
-
YES - this is a bug it should > 59 - omg.
About mixed data you are right but this is always the question what if it looked like
hh.mm.ss.msec … -
Indeed, there are always more formats that might exist. I’ve only seen colon-separated in
.srtfiles, so I think that keeping it generic enough that it won’t mess up an existing.srt, even if it does have some with hours and some without.BTW: I had forgotten why I included the
[:\d]rather than just:in my negative lookbehind: without the\din the character class,1:15:00.000(which shouldn’t match) would partially match on5:00.000, which would be even worse.And running a test with
1:15:00.000, even with your simpler expression, works correctly (ie, doesn’t try to change it) – ahh, that’s because the minutes are less than 60. I guess unless there’s a strange1:65:00.000, yours won’t be a problem. I guess yours is generic enough. -
I’m trying to avoid function lookups as those are expensive …
yes, i’m a bit short on money too at the moment … and don’t even dare to give me an (s.h) for this comment 😉
-
:-D - always reminds me of this
-
singing: ahaaaa, ahahahaaa … all the things i could do … ;-)
-
I don’t understand all of this but what I got makes me laughing … :-D
-
@Eko-palypse
i also didn’t understand many of weird al yankovic’s insider jokes, but he made a lot of 80’s songs parodies, a funny one was “fat”, a parody of michael jacksons “bad” … or at least it used to be funny to me when i was a kid ;-) -
btw: my apologies to you @Dana-Wright if you had to read everything after your “Worked like a charm! Thank you very much!” and eko’s explanation.
sometimes (but very few) we tend to have a little “after work chat” between regulars in public, which can be a bit off topic from time to time. i hope you didn’t mind.
-
one more song and then it’s enough for today:
>>> here’s a song <<< for @Scott-Sumner 😪😉😂
-
As valuable as Scott’s (and Claudia’s) posts were, we have some really good new posters about scripting (example Eko, and Peter is developing as a Python person), so let’s not be too sad if they decide not to return.
