• Login
Community
  • Login

How to change/convert the format of a timestamp?

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved General Discussion
38 Posts 6 Posters 12.3k Views
Loading More Posts
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • D
    Dana Wright
    last edited by Jan 25, 2019, 8:48 PM

    @Eko-palypse Worked like a charm! Thank you very much!

    Now I need to analyze this and figure it out how it was done.

    E M 2 Replies Last reply Jan 25, 2019, 8:57 PM Reply Quote 3
    • E
      Eko palypse @Dana Wright
      last edited by Eko palypse Jan 25, 2019, 8:58 PM Jan 25, 2019, 8:57 PM

      @Dana-Wright

      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.
      :02 means that we want to have it in two digit format 1->01 but 10->10 …
      That’s it.

      A 1 Reply Last reply Jan 25, 2019, 9:08 PM Reply Quote 2
      • A
        Alan Kilborn @Eko palypse
        last edited by Jan 25, 2019, 9:08 PM

        @Eko-palypse said:

        That’s it.

        Well…you didn’t explain the else part, 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 returning None as a signal to not do any replacement.

        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
        • E
          Eko palypse
          last edited by Jan 25, 2019, 9:14 PM

          you are absolutely correct - this survived the test when having hh::mm::ss::msec :-)
          But python slicing is rescuing me :-D

          I 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?

          A 1 Reply Last reply Jan 25, 2019, 9:31 PM Reply Quote 0
          • A
            Alan Kilborn @Eko palypse
            last edited by Alan Kilborn Jan 25, 2019, 9:32 PM Jan 25, 2019, 9:31 PM

            @Eko-palypse

            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.

            E 1 Reply Last reply Jan 25, 2019, 9:38 PM Reply Quote 0
            • E
              Eko palypse @Alan Kilborn
              last edited by Jan 25, 2019, 9:38 PM

              @Alan-Kilborn

              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.

              A 1 Reply Last reply Jan 25, 2019, 9:41 PM Reply Quote 1
              • A
                Alan Kilborn @Eko palypse
                last edited by Jan 25, 2019, 9:41 PM

                @Eko-palypse

                Okay…so I didn’t follow any of that, but I look forward to the come back. :)

                E 1 Reply Last reply Jan 25, 2019, 9:45 PM Reply Quote 0
                • E
                  Eko palypse @Alan Kilborn
                  last edited by Jan 25, 2019, 9:45 PM

                  @Alan-Kilborn

                  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[:])

                  1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
                  • P
                    PeterJones
                    last edited by Jan 25, 2019, 9:45 PM

                    My two comments would be:

                    1. if min > 60: = if the data is 60:00.000, it wouldn’t change. Make it if min >=60:
                    2. 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+
                    E 1 Reply Last reply Jan 25, 2019, 9:48 PM Reply Quote 1
                    • E
                      Eko palypse @PeterJones
                      last edited by Jan 25, 2019, 9:48 PM

                      @PeterJones

                      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 …

                      M 1 Reply Last reply Jan 25, 2019, 9:56 PM Reply Quote 1
                      • P
                        PeterJones
                        last edited by Jan 25, 2019, 9:54 PM

                        @Eko-palypse ,

                        Indeed, there are always more formats that might exist. I’ve only seen colon-separated in .srt files, 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 \d in the character class, 1:15:00.000 (which shouldn’t match) would partially match on 5:00.000, 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 strange 1:65:00.000, yours won’t be a problem. I guess yours is generic enough.

                        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 2
                        • M
                          Meta Chuh moderator @Eko palypse
                          last edited by Jan 25, 2019, 9:56 PM

                          @Eko-palypse

                          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 😉

                          E 1 Reply Last reply Jan 25, 2019, 10:04 PM Reply Quote 1
                          • E
                            Eko palypse @Meta Chuh
                            last edited by Jan 25, 2019, 10:04 PM

                            @Meta-Chuh

                            :-D - always reminds me of this

                            M 1 Reply Last reply Jan 25, 2019, 10:07 PM Reply Quote 1
                            • M
                              Meta Chuh moderator @Eko palypse
                              last edited by Jan 25, 2019, 10:07 PM

                              @Eko-palypse

                              singing: ahaaaa, ahahahaaa … all the things i could do … ;-)

                              E 1 Reply Last reply Jan 25, 2019, 10:13 PM Reply Quote 1
                              • E
                                Eko palypse @Meta Chuh
                                last edited by Jan 25, 2019, 10:13 PM

                                @Meta-Chuh

                                I don’t understand all of this but what I got makes me laughing … :-D

                                M 1 Reply Last reply Jan 25, 2019, 10:27 PM Reply Quote 1
                                • M
                                  Meta Chuh moderator @Eko palypse
                                  last edited by Jan 25, 2019, 10:27 PM

                                  @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 ;-)

                                  1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
                                  • M
                                    Meta Chuh moderator @Dana Wright
                                    last edited by Jan 25, 2019, 10:41 PM

                                    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.

                                    1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
                                    • M
                                      Meta Chuh moderator
                                      last edited by Meta Chuh Jan 26, 2019, 12:50 AM Jan 25, 2019, 11:24 PM

                                      one more song and then it’s enough for today:

                                      >>> here’s a song <<< for @Scott-Sumner 😪😉😂

                                      A 1 Reply Last reply Jan 26, 2019, 2:24 PM Reply Quote 1
                                      • A
                                        Alan Kilborn @Meta Chuh
                                        last edited by Jan 26, 2019, 2:24 PM

                                        @Meta-Chuh

                                        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.

                                        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                        • G
                                          guy038
                                          last edited by guy038 Jan 27, 2019, 10:12 PM Jan 27, 2019, 8:26 PM

                                          Hello, @dana-wright, @eko-palypse, @alan-kilborn, @meta-chuh, @peterjones and All,

                                          Just a bit late, but here are two regexes S/R which could achieve the goal !

                                          Note that, regarding the initial timestamps, I will use the convention [M]MM:SS.mmm, where :

                                          • [M]MM represents the number of minutes, from 00 to 119/179, with two or three digits

                                          • SS represents the number of seconds, from 00 to 59, with two digits

                                          • mmm represents the number of milliseconds, from 000 to 999, with three digits


                                          Case A) If your file contains timestamps syntaxes, from 00:00.000 to 119:59.999, only ( so 0 <[M]MM < 2 hours ) , one solution could be :

                                          • SEARCH A   (?<!:)(?:([0-5])|(6)|(7)|(8)|(9)|(10)|(11))(\d:\d{2}\.\d{3})(?=\s)

                                          • REPLACE A (?{1}00:01):(?1\1)(?{2}0)(?{3}1)(?{4}2)(?{5}3)(?{6}4)(?{7}5)\8

                                          Case B) If your file contains timestamps syntaxes, from 00:00.000 to 179:59.999, only ( so 0 < [M]MM < 3 hours ), a longer S/R is :

                                          • SEARCH B   (?<!:)(?:([0-5])|((6)|(7)|(8)|(9)|(10)|(11))|((12)|(13)|(14)|(15)|(16)|(17)))(\d:\d{2}\.\d{3})(?=\s)

                                          • REPLACE B (?{1}00)(?{2}01)(?{9}02):(?1\1)(?{3}0)(?{4}1)(?{5}2)(?{6}3)(?{7}4)(?{8}5)(?{10}0)(?{11}1)(?{12}2)(?{13}3)(?{14}4)(?{15}5)$16


                                          As usual :

                                          • Check the Wrap around option

                                          • Select the Regular expression search mode

                                          • Click on the Replace All button

                                          Best Regards

                                          guy038

                                          P. S.

                                          For instance :

                                          • With the regexes A, the initial text, below :
                                          00:00.000
                                          23:52.984
                                          39:43.529
                                          59:59.999
                                          60:00.000
                                          78:08.168
                                          91:38.524
                                          103:05.216
                                          111:41.465
                                          119:59.999
                                          

                                          becomes :

                                          00:00:00.000
                                          00:23:52.984
                                          00:39:43.529
                                          00:59:59.999
                                          01:00:00.000
                                          01:18:08.168
                                          01:31:38.524
                                          01:43:05.216
                                          01:51:41.465
                                          01:59:59.999
                                          
                                          • With the regexes B, the following text :
                                          00:00.000
                                          23:52.984
                                          39:43.529
                                          59:59.999
                                          60:00.000
                                          78:08.168
                                          91:38.524
                                          103:05.216
                                          111:41.465
                                          119:59.999
                                          120:00.000
                                          147:33.150
                                          160:00.058
                                          179:59.999
                                          

                                          becomes :

                                          00:00:00.000
                                          00:23:52.984
                                          00:39:43.529
                                          00:59:59.999
                                          01:00:00.000
                                          01:18:08.168
                                          01:31:38.524
                                          01:43:05.216
                                          01:51:41.465
                                          01:59:59.999
                                          02:00:00.000
                                          02:27:33.150
                                          02:40:00.058
                                          02:59:59.999
                                          
                                          M 1 Reply Last reply Jan 27, 2019, 8:40 PM Reply Quote 2
                                          26 out of 38
                                          • First post
                                            26/38
                                            Last post
                                          The Community of users of the Notepad++ text editor.
                                          Powered by NodeBB | Contributors