I am trying to Titlecase some text which contains corporate names and their stock symbols.
Example (these strings are concatenated as corporate name, which gets title cased and the symbol in parens): AT&T (T)
John Deere Inc. (DE)
These corporate names come from our database which draws them from a stock pricing service. I have it working EXCEPT for when the name is an abbreviation like AT&T
That is return, and you guessed it right, like At&t. How can I preserve casing in abbreviations. I thought to use indexof to get the position of any &'s and uppercase the two characters on either side of it but that seems hackish.
Along the lines of(pseudo code)
var indexPos = myString.indexOf("&");
var fixedString = myString.charAt(indexPos - 1).toUpperCase().charAt(indexPos + 1).toUpperCase()
Oops, forgot to include my titlecase function
function toTitleCase(str) {
return str.replace(/([^\W_]+[^\s-]*) */g, function (txt) {
return txt.charAt(0).toUpperCase() + txt.substr(1).toLowerCase();
});
}
Any better suggestions?
A better title case function may be
function toTitleCase(str) {
return str.replace(
/(\b.)|(.)/g,
function ($0, $1, $2) {
return ($1 && $1.toUpperCase()) || $2.toLowerCase();
}
);
}
toTitleCase("foo bAR&bAz a.e.i."); // "Foo Bar&Baz A.E.I."
This will still transform AT&T to At&T, but there's no information in the way it's written to know what to do, so finally
// specific fixes
if (str === "At&T" ) str = "AT&T";
else if (str === "Iphone") str = "iPhone";
// etc
// or
var dict = {
"At&T": "AT&T",
"Iphone": "iPhone"
};
str = dict[str] || str;
Though of course if you can do it right when you enter the data in the first place it will save you a lot of trouble
This is a general solution for title case, without taking your extra requirements of "abbreviations" into account:
var fixedString = String(myString).toLowerCase().replace(/\b\w/g, String.toUpperCase);
Although I agree with other posters that it's better to start with the data in the correct format in the first place. Not all proper names conform to title case, with just a couple examples being "Werner von Braun" and "Ronald McDonald." There's really no algorithm you can program into a computer to handle the often arbitrary capitalization of proper names, just like you can't really program a computer to spell check proper names.
However, you can certainly program in some exception cases, although I'm still not sure that simply assuming that any word with an ampersand in it should be in all caps always appropriate either. But that can be accomplished like so:
var titleCase = String(myString).toLowerCase().replace(/\b\w/g, String.toUpperCase);
var fixedString = titleCase.replace(/\b\w*\&\w*\b/g, String.toUpperCase);
Note that your second example of "John Deere Inc. (DE)" still isn't handled properly, though. I suppose you could add some other logic to say, put anything word between parentheses in all caps, like so:
var titleCase = String(myString).toLowerCase().replace(/\b\w/g, String.toUpperCase);
var titleCaseCapAmps = titleCase.replace(/\b\w*\&\w*\b/g, String.toUpperCase);
var fixedString = titleCaseCapAmps.replace(/\(.*\)/g, String.toUpperCase);
Which will at least handle your two examples correctly.
How about this: Since the number of registered companies with the stock exchange is finite, and there's a well-defined mapping between stock symbols and company names, your best best is probably to program that mapping into your code, to look up the company name by the ticker abbreviation, something like this:
var TickerToName =
{
A: "Agilent Technologies",
AA: "Alcoa Inc.",
// etc., etc.
}
Then it's just a simple lookup to get the company name from the ticker symbol:
var symbol = "T";
var CompanyName = TickerToName[symbol] || "Unknown ticker symbol: " + symbol;
Of course, I would be very surprised if there was not already some kind of Web Service you could call to get back a company name from a stock ticker symbol, something like in this thread:
Stock ticker symbol lookup API
Or maybe there's some functionality like this in the stock pricing service you're using to get the data in the first place.
The last time I faced this situation, I decided that it was less trouble to simply include the few exceptions here and there as need.
var titleCaseFix = {
"At&t": "AT&T"
}
var fixit(str) {
foreach (var oldCase in titleCaseFix) {
var newCase = titleCaseFix[oldCase];
// Look here for various string replace options:
// http://stackoverflow.com/questions/542232/in-javascript-how-can-i-perform-a-global-replace-on-string-with-a-variable-insi
}
return str;
}
Related
Okay, to start with I should mention this is a very small personal project, and I've only have a handful of coding classes several years ago now. I can figure out a lot of the (very) basics, but have a hard time troubleshooting. I'm in a little bit over my head here, and need a dumbed down solution.
I'm trying to put together a VERY simple translator that takes in a word or sentence from the user via a text input box, puts each word of the string into an array, translates each word in order, then spits out each translated word in the order it was input. For example, typing "I like cats" would output "Ich mag Katze" in German.
I've got most of it, but I CAN'T get anything but the first array element to translate. It comes out like "Ich like cats".
I've used a loop, probably because I'm an amateur and don't know another way of doing this, and I'd rather not use any libraries or anything. This is a very small project I want to have a couple of friends utilize locally; and I know there has to be some very simple code that will just take a string, put it into an array, swap one word for another word, and then output the results, but I'm damned if I can make it work.
What I currently have is the closest I've gotten, but like I said, it doesn't work. I've jerry-rigged the loop and clearly that's the totally wrong approach, but I can't see the forest for the trees. If you can help me, please make it "Javascript for Babies" picture book levels of simple, I cannot stress enough how inexperienced I am. This is just supposed to be a fun little extra thing for my D&D group.
function checkForTranslation(input, outputDiv) {
var input = document.getElementById("inputTextField").value;
var outputDiv = document.getElementById("translationOutputDiv");
input = input.toLowerCase();
//puts user input into an array and then outputs it word by word
const myArray = input.split(" "); //added .split, thank you James, still otherwise broken
let output = "";
let translation = "";
for (let i = 0; i < myArray.length; i++) {
output += myArray[i]; //up to here, this works perfectly to put each word in the string into an array
//prints all words but doesnt translate the second onwards
translation += myArray[i];
if (output == "") {
//document.getElementById("print2").innerHTML = "Translation Here";
}
else if (output == "apple") {
translation = "x-ray";
}
else if (output == "banana") {
translation = "yak";
}
else {
translation = "???";
}
output += " "; //adds a space when displaying original user input
} // END FOR LOOP
document.getElementById("print").innerHTML = output; //this outputs the original user input to the screen
document.getElementById("print3").innerHTML = translation; //this should output the translated output to the screen
} // END FUNCTION CHECKFORTRANSLATION
What it looks like
P.S. I'm not worried about Best Practices here, this is supposed to be a quickie project that I can send to a couple friends and they can open the HTML doc, saved locally, in their browser when they want to mess around with it if they want their half-orc character to say "die by my hammer!" or something. If you have suggestions for making it neater great, but I'm not worried about a mess, no one is going to be reading this but me, and hopefully once it's fixed I'll never have to read it again either!
Since it is a manual simple translation, you should just create a "dictionary" and use it to get the translations.
var dictionary = {
"apple": "x-ray",
"banana": "yak"
}
function checkForTranslation() {
var input = document.getElementById("inputTextField").value.toLowerCase();
var words = input
.split(' ') // split string to words
.filter(function(word) { // remove empty words
return word.length > 0
});
var translatedWords = words.map(function(word) {
var wordTranslation = dictionary[word]; // get from dictionary
if (wordTranslation) {
return wordTranslation;
} else { // if word was not found in dictionary
return "???";
}
});
var translatedText = translatedWords.join(' ');
document.getElementById("translationOutputDiv").innerHTML = translatedText;
}
document.getElementById('translate').addEventListener('click', function() {
checkForTranslation();
});
<input type="text" id="inputTextField" />
<button id="translate">translate</button>
<br/>
<hr />
<div id="translationOutputDiv"></div>
Or if you want it a little more organized, you could use
const dictionary = {
"apple": "x-ray",
"banana": "yak"
}
function getTranslation(string) {
return string
.toLowerCase()
.split(' ')
.filter(word => word)
.map(word => dictionary[word] || '???')
.join(' ');
}
function translate(inputEl, outputEl) {
outputEl.innerHTML = getTranslation(inputEl.value);
}
document.querySelector('#translate').addEventListener('click', function() {
const input = document.querySelector('#inputTextField');
const output = document.querySelector('#translationOutputDiv');
translate(input, output);
});
<input type="text" id="inputTextField" />
<button id="translate">translate</button>
<br/>
<hr />
<div id="translationOutputDiv"></div>
I understand the syntax of ES6 tagged templates. What I don't see is the practical usability. When is it better than passing an object parameter, like the settings in jQuery's AJAX? $.ajax('url', { /*this guy here*/ })
Right now I only see the tricky syntax but I don't see why I would need/use it. I also found that the TypeScript team chose to implement it (in 1.5) before other important features. What is the concept behind tagged string templates?
You can use tagged templates to build APIs that are more expressive than regular function calls.
For example, I'm working on a proof-of-concept library for SQL queries on JS arrays:
let admins = sql`SELECT name, id FROM ${users}
WHERE ${user => user.roles.indexOf('admin') >= 0}`
Notice it has nothing to do with String interpolation; it uses tagged templates for readability. It would be hard to construct something that reads as intuitively with plain function calls - I guess you'd have something like this:
let admins = sql("SELECT name, id FROM $users WHERE $filter",
{ $users: users, $filter: (user) => user.roles.contains('admin') })
This example is just a fun side project, but I think it shows some of the benefits of tagged templates.
Another example, maybe more obvious, is i18n - a tagged template could insert locale-sensitive versions of your input.
See Sitepoint's explanation:
The final stage of template strings specification is about adding a custom function before the string itself to create a tagged template string.
...
For instance, here is a piece of code to block strings that try to inject custom DOM elements:
var items = [];
items.push("banana");
items.push("tomato");
items.push("light saber");
var total = "Trying to hijack your site <BR>";
var myTagFunction = function (strings,...values) {
var output = "";
for (var index = 0; index < values.length; index++) {
var valueString = values[index].toString();
if (valueString.indexOf(">") !== -1) {
// Far more complex tests can be implemented here :)
return "String analyzed and refused!";
}
output += strings[index] + values[index];
}
output += strings[index]
return output;
}
result.innerHTML = myTagFunction `You have ${items.length} item(s) in your basket for a total of $${total}`;
Tagged template strings can used for a lot of things like security, localization, creating your own domain specific language, etc.
They're useful because the function can (almost) completely define the meaning of the text inside it (almost = other than placeholders). I like to use the example of Steven Levithan's XRegExp library. It's awkward to use regular expressions defined as strings, because you have to double-escape things: Once for the string literal, and once for regex. This is one of the reasons we have regular expression literals in JavaScript.
For instance, suppose I'm doing maintenance on a site and I find this:
var isSingleUnicodeWord = /^\w+$/;
...which is meant to check if a string contains only "letters." Two problems: A) There are thousands of "word" characters across the realm of human language that \w doesn't recognize, because its definition is English-centric; and B) It includes _, which many (including the Unicode consortium) would argue is not a "letter."
Suppose in my work I've introduced XRegExp to the codebase. Since I know it supports \pL (\p for Unicode categories, and L for "letter"), I might quickly swap this in:
var isSingleUnicodeWord = XRegExp("^\pL+$"); // WRONG
Then I wonder why it didn't work, *facepalm*, and go back and escape that backslash, since it's being consumed by the string literal:
var isSingleUnicodeWord = XRegExp("^\\pL+$");
// ---------------------------------^
What a pain. Suppose I could write the actual regular expression without worrying about double-escaping?
I can: With a tagged template function. I can put this in my standard lib:
function xrex(strings, ...values) {
const raw = strings.raw;
let result = "";
for (let i = 0; i < raw.length; ++i) {
result += raw[i];
if (i < values.length) { // `values` always has one fewer entry
result += values[i];
}
}
return XRegExp(result);
}
Or alternately, this is a valid use case for reduce, and we can use destructuring in the argument list:
function xrex({raw}, ...values) {
return XRegExp(
raw.reduce(
(acc, str, index) => acc + str + (index < values.length ? values[index] : ""),
""
)
);
}
And then I can happily write:
const isSingleUnicodeWord = xrex`^\pL+$`;
Example:
// My tag function (defined once, then reused)
function xrex({raw}, ...values) {
const result = raw.reduce(
(acc, str, index) => acc + str + (index < values.length ? values[index] : ""),
""
);
console.log("Creating with:", result);
return XRegExp(result);
}
// Using it, with a couple of substitutions to prove to myself they work
let category = "L"; // L: Letter
let maybeEol = "$";
let isSingleUnicodeWord = xrex`^\p${category}+${maybeEol}`;
function test(str) {
console.log(str + ": " + isSingleUnicodeWord.test(str));
}
test("Русский"); // true
test("日本語"); // true
test("العربية"); // true
test("foo bar"); // false
test("$£"); // false
<script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/xregexp/3.2.0/xregexp-all.min.js"></script>
The only thing I have to remember now is that ${...} is special because it's a placeholder. In this specific case, it's not a problem, I'm unlikely to want to apply a quantifier to the end-of-input assertion, but that's a coincidence...
I understand the syntax of ES6 tagged templates. What I don't see is the practical usability. When is it better than passing an object parameter, like the settings in jQuery's AJAX? $.ajax('url', { /*this guy here*/ })
Right now I only see the tricky syntax but I don't see why I would need/use it. I also found that the TypeScript team chose to implement it (in 1.5) before other important features. What is the concept behind tagged string templates?
You can use tagged templates to build APIs that are more expressive than regular function calls.
For example, I'm working on a proof-of-concept library for SQL queries on JS arrays:
let admins = sql`SELECT name, id FROM ${users}
WHERE ${user => user.roles.indexOf('admin') >= 0}`
Notice it has nothing to do with String interpolation; it uses tagged templates for readability. It would be hard to construct something that reads as intuitively with plain function calls - I guess you'd have something like this:
let admins = sql("SELECT name, id FROM $users WHERE $filter",
{ $users: users, $filter: (user) => user.roles.contains('admin') })
This example is just a fun side project, but I think it shows some of the benefits of tagged templates.
Another example, maybe more obvious, is i18n - a tagged template could insert locale-sensitive versions of your input.
See Sitepoint's explanation:
The final stage of template strings specification is about adding a custom function before the string itself to create a tagged template string.
...
For instance, here is a piece of code to block strings that try to inject custom DOM elements:
var items = [];
items.push("banana");
items.push("tomato");
items.push("light saber");
var total = "Trying to hijack your site <BR>";
var myTagFunction = function (strings,...values) {
var output = "";
for (var index = 0; index < values.length; index++) {
var valueString = values[index].toString();
if (valueString.indexOf(">") !== -1) {
// Far more complex tests can be implemented here :)
return "String analyzed and refused!";
}
output += strings[index] + values[index];
}
output += strings[index]
return output;
}
result.innerHTML = myTagFunction `You have ${items.length} item(s) in your basket for a total of $${total}`;
Tagged template strings can used for a lot of things like security, localization, creating your own domain specific language, etc.
They're useful because the function can (almost) completely define the meaning of the text inside it (almost = other than placeholders). I like to use the example of Steven Levithan's XRegExp library. It's awkward to use regular expressions defined as strings, because you have to double-escape things: Once for the string literal, and once for regex. This is one of the reasons we have regular expression literals in JavaScript.
For instance, suppose I'm doing maintenance on a site and I find this:
var isSingleUnicodeWord = /^\w+$/;
...which is meant to check if a string contains only "letters." Two problems: A) There are thousands of "word" characters across the realm of human language that \w doesn't recognize, because its definition is English-centric; and B) It includes _, which many (including the Unicode consortium) would argue is not a "letter."
Suppose in my work I've introduced XRegExp to the codebase. Since I know it supports \pL (\p for Unicode categories, and L for "letter"), I might quickly swap this in:
var isSingleUnicodeWord = XRegExp("^\pL+$"); // WRONG
Then I wonder why it didn't work, *facepalm*, and go back and escape that backslash, since it's being consumed by the string literal:
var isSingleUnicodeWord = XRegExp("^\\pL+$");
// ---------------------------------^
What a pain. Suppose I could write the actual regular expression without worrying about double-escaping?
I can: With a tagged template function. I can put this in my standard lib:
function xrex(strings, ...values) {
const raw = strings.raw;
let result = "";
for (let i = 0; i < raw.length; ++i) {
result += raw[i];
if (i < values.length) { // `values` always has one fewer entry
result += values[i];
}
}
return XRegExp(result);
}
Or alternately, this is a valid use case for reduce, and we can use destructuring in the argument list:
function xrex({raw}, ...values) {
return XRegExp(
raw.reduce(
(acc, str, index) => acc + str + (index < values.length ? values[index] : ""),
""
)
);
}
And then I can happily write:
const isSingleUnicodeWord = xrex`^\pL+$`;
Example:
// My tag function (defined once, then reused)
function xrex({raw}, ...values) {
const result = raw.reduce(
(acc, str, index) => acc + str + (index < values.length ? values[index] : ""),
""
);
console.log("Creating with:", result);
return XRegExp(result);
}
// Using it, with a couple of substitutions to prove to myself they work
let category = "L"; // L: Letter
let maybeEol = "$";
let isSingleUnicodeWord = xrex`^\p${category}+${maybeEol}`;
function test(str) {
console.log(str + ": " + isSingleUnicodeWord.test(str));
}
test("Русский"); // true
test("日本語"); // true
test("العربية"); // true
test("foo bar"); // false
test("$£"); // false
<script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/xregexp/3.2.0/xregexp-all.min.js"></script>
The only thing I have to remember now is that ${...} is special because it's a placeholder. In this specific case, it's not a problem, I'm unlikely to want to apply a quantifier to the end-of-input assertion, but that's a coincidence...
I am working on javascript code that parses a tab delimited document. In order to facilitate searching I need to convert those properties that are a number to a float. However, mixed fields (like an address) should maintain the status of a String.
for(var i2=0;i2<line1.length;i2++){
var test = local[i2];
if(! (typeof test === 'undefined')){
test = test.trim();
};
var parsed = parseFloat(test);
if(!isNaN(parsed)){
if(line1[i2] === "Site Address")
console.log("Number before:"+local[i2]+" After:"+parsed);
object[line1[i2]]=parsed;
}
else{
if(line1[i2] === "Site Address")
console.log("before:"+local[i2]+" After:"+test);
object[line1[i2]]=test;
}
}
This seems to work ok unless there are both numbers and chars like the following....
Number before:1752 E MAIN ST After:1752
Is there a way to do this where the above is not seen as explicitly a number?
You can use the unary + operator:
var parsed = +test;
The parseFloat() function is OK with strings that start with a valid number that's followed by non-numeric stuff, as you've discovered.
If that seems too "hackery" you can also use the Number constructor:
var parsed = Number( test );
You haven't provided very much test data, so answers may not be very good. You can try using a regular expression so that only things that look like numbers are treated as numbers, e.g.
var isNum = /^\d+(\.\d+)?$/;
var test = line1[i2];
parsed = isNum.test(test)? parseFloat(test) : test;
The variable "test" would probaby be better named "item" or "value" or similar.
An example of what im trying to get:
String1 - 'string.co.uk' - would return 'string' and 'co.uk'
String2 - 'random.words.string.co.uk' - would return 'string` and 'co.uk'
I currently have this:
var split= [];
var tld_part = domain_name.split(".");
var sld_parts = domain_name.split(".")[0];
tld_part = tld_part.slice(1, tld_part.length);
split.push(sld_parts);
split.push(tld_part.join("."));
With my current code, it takes the split parameter from the beginning, i want to reverse it if possible. With my current code it does this:
String1 - 'string.co.uk' - returns 'string' and 'co.uk'
String2 - 'random.words.string.co.uk' - would return 'random` and 'words.string.co.uk'
Any suggestions?
To expand upon elclanrs comment:
function getParts(str) {
var temp = str.split('.').slice(-3) // grabs the last 3 elements
return {
tld_parts : [temp[1],temp[2]].join("."),
sld_parts : temp[0]
}
}
getParts("foo.bar.baz.co.uk") would return { tld_parts : "co.uk", sld_parts : "baz" }
and
getParts("i.got.99.terms.but.a.bit.aint.one.co.uk") would return { tld_parts : "co.uk", sld_parts : "one" }
try this
var str='string.co.uk'//or 'random.words.string.co.uk'
var part = str.split('.');
var result = part[part.length - 1].toString() + '.' + part[part.length - 1].toString();
alert(result);
One way that comes to mind is the following
var tld_part = domain_name.split(".");
var name = tld_part[tld_part.length - 2];
var tld = tld_part[tld_part.length - 1] +"."+ tld_part[tld_part.length];
Depending on your use case, peforming direct splits might not be a good idea — for example, how would the above code handle .com or even just localhost? In this respect I would go down the RegExp route:
function stripSubdomains( str ){
var regs; return (regs = /([^.]+)(\.co)?(\.[^.]+)$/i.exec( str ))
? regs[1] + (regs[2]||'') + regs[3]
: str
;
};
Before the Regular Expression Police attack reprimand me for not being specific enough, a disclaimer:
The above can be tightened as a check against domain names by rather than checking for ^., to check for the specific characters allowed in a domain at that point. However, my own personal perspective on matters like these is to be more open at the point of capture, and be tougher from a filtering point at a later date... This allows you to keep an eye on what people might be trying, because you can never be 100% certain your validation isn't blocking valid requests — unless you have an army of user testers at your disposal. At the end of the day, it all depends on where this code is being used, so the above is an illustrated example only.