I want validate text box with particular range having format like :
1-99
I am using regex :
/^(?:100|[1-9]\d|\d)-(?:100|[1-9]\d|\d)$/
It works for me but little problem that is it accept this:
55-50
And it shouldn't, this is wrong.
how can I correct this?
As it has been told early regexp is not the method for validating ranges. The better way is to use if/else statements. But you are not restricted in usage of regexp for validating input string on the particular format.
F.i., if you'd like to enable the end user to enter the range in the format number1-number2, you could check the string for compliance to this format and check its parts for complaince to the condition number1 <= number2. If all these checks are done you could do something useful or decline, if checks are fail.
function validRange(rangeStr, min, max) {
var m = rangeStr.match(/^([0-9]+)-([0-9]+)$/);
if ( m && m[1] >= min && m[2] <= max && m[1] <= m[2] ) {
return true;
}
return false;
}
var s = '1-99';
var s = '55-50';
if ( validRange(s, 1, 99) ) {
// do something useful
}
The code above is just skeleton for the further improvements but it can be used now. But the code could be too complicated, if you or your customers will request to implement something more complex like ability to enter single number, lists of numbers (separated with comma, semicolons etc), mixed ranges or any combination of all of them.
Because you need to check validation between the both number you have to use logical operations to check if the forst number is less than second, so you couldn't use regex in this case instead use if/else statement :
var input = "55-50";
if(input.indexOf('-')){
var input_arr = input.split('-');
if(input_arr.length==2 && parseInt(input_arr[0])<parseInt(input_arr[1]))
alert("Accepted");
else
alert("Not accepted");
}
I am creating a class to convert an integer to a sentence in a natural language. I've got some basic checks going on to ensure that the number given is between -9999 and 9999. I feel like this works for the most part.
However, once the program reaches "this.convertSentence" - past the try/catch block and error checking, I'm wondering what the best practice is now to decompose the problem into the various function calls it will need to run through to get the job done.
What I'm planning on doing with this.convertSentence is doing some checking for number size, etc...and then sending the number off to separate functions to do more work and having them propagate a sentence to return. I'm not sure if I want a variable just within my class to work with or whether I should be passing a variable around for the sentence to build. Things like this I am wondering about.
/**
* A class for converting an integer to a natrual language sentence in Spanish.
* Accepts integers from -9999 to 9999
*
*/
function NumberToWord () {
this.getSentence = function(number) {
// Check for erroneous input. Accepts only -9999 thru 9999 integers
try
{
if(number === parseInt(number) && number > -10000 && number < 10000) {
return this.convertSentence(number);
}
else {
throw new Error("Argument is not an integer between -9999 and 9999");
}
}
catch(e){
console.log(e.name + " " + e.message);
}
};
this.convertSentence = function(number) {
return "This is where I'll start the logic for the sentence";
};
}
var numberToWord = new NumberToWord();
// Tests
console.log(numberToWord.getSentence(9999));
console.log(numberToWord.getSentence(-9999));
console.log(numberToWord.getSentence(10000));
console.log(numberToWord.getSentence(-10000));
console.log(numberToWord.getSentence(0));
console.log(numberToWord.getSentence(1.1));
console.log(numberToWord.getSentence(-9999.1));
console.log(numberToWord.getSentence(10001));
console.log(numberToWord.getSentence(-10001));
console.log(numberToWord.getSentence(5.5));
console.log(numberToWord.getSentence());
There are a few things I found amiss in your code:
You don't need a class. You simply want to convert a number to a sentence. Use a function.
Why are both getSentence and convertSentence public? Only getSentence should be public.
Since your class will (in all probability) only be instatiated once, use the singleton pattern.
Things I would do:
Because you want to make your code modular, I would use the module pattern.
You can delegate specific tasks to different functions, but keep them in a private namespace.
Here's the code:
Number.prototype.toWord = function () {
return function (lang) {
var number = this.valueOf();
if (parseInt(number) === number) {
if (number < 10000 && number > 10000) {
switch (lang) {
case "es":
return toSpanish(number);
case "en":
default:
return toEnglish(number);
}
} else throw new RangeError("Expected an integer between ±10000.");
} else throw new TypeError("Expected an integer.");
};
function toSpanish(number) {
// convert the number to Spanish
}
function toEnglish(number) {
// convert the number to English
}
}();
Then you can use it like this:
var number = 1337;
alert(number.toWord("es"));
Edit: I wrote a simple function which will do what you want. However it's in English. I don't know Spanish so you'll have to implement that yourself. Here's the demo: http://jsfiddle.net/XKYhx/2/
My thinking would be to check how many parts you are going to have to the sentence and build an array to match with the substrings. for example, in English anyway (I don't speak Spanish!)
as natural language you would say (minus) xxx thousand and xxx
since your number has a max / min of ~10000 / ~-10000,
in pseudocode:
var sign = ""
var wholeparts = new Array()
var mantissaparts = new Array()
if number < 0,
sign = "minus"
number = math.abs(number) // turn the number into a positive number now we have the sign
var whole = math.floor(number) //get whole number
var mantissa = number - whole //get the after decimal part if exists
if whole > 1000
wholeparts.push(math.floor(whole/1000)) //get the thousands part
wholeparts.push(whole - parts[0]*1000) // add the hundreds
else
parts.push(whole)
if mantissa.length > 0
do something similar for the mantissa to the mantissaparts array.
At this point you would have the sentence structure broken down then:
string sentance:
foreach (var part in wholeparts)
stringify and check each number, converting to human words depending on index, ie "seven" or "seventy", add each to the string.
if wholeparts.length > 1 : sentence = sentence + " thousand and"
then if you had a mantissa, sentence = sentence + "point" .. then and the mantissa as natural language.
Best breakdown I can think of would be:
method to convert a number (whole or mantissa) to an array,
method to convert the array to natural language, with a parameter saying if it is whole or mantissa for the different wording that would be used.
method that accepts a number in string form and returns the natural language equivalent
Hope that helps .. was thinking on the fly.
I am making a simple tip calculator to help myself learn Javascript. The problem I can't solve is how to compensate for "bad input".
In the code below if the user prefaces the numeric input amount with a dollar sign $, the result is NAN.
function tipAmount(){
var dinner=prompt("How much was dinner?");
result = dinner*.10;
alert("Your tip is " +"$"+result );
}
How do I fix that.
You can try to parse out the numeric value with a regular expression:
var match = dinner.match(/\d+\.?\d*/); // parse with a regular expression
if(!match) { // not able to parse
alert("wrong");
}
var price = +match[0]; // convert to a number
result = price * .10;
The regular expression /\d+\.?\d*/ means: one or more digits, and possibly a dot with other digits following. This means that if e.g. dinner is "$1.23", price will be the number 1.23. The same goes for "$ 1.23" or "1.23 dollar" etc - the number will be parsed out with the pattern defined by the regular expression.
The simplest way would be to parse the input into a float, and see if NaN is returned.
if (isNaN(parseFloat(dinner)))
alert("Bad Input")
Just note that 45.2WWW will return 45.2, and so the above will pass.
If you want to make sure what the user typed in is exactly a number, you could do something like this:
var str = '3.445';
var num = parseFloat(str);
if (isNaN(num) || str.length !== num.toString().length)
alert("Bad Input");
try to parse the input as float or integer depending on your needs:
var dinner = parseFloat(prompt("How much was dinner?"));
or
var dinner = parseInt(prompt("How much was dinner?"));
this functions return 0 whether they unable to parse the input as number
Given your approach of using alerts, the following will work:
function tipAmount() {
var dinner=prompt("How much was dinner?");
//convert "dinner" to a number, stripping out any non numeric data
dinner = Number(dinner.replace(/[^0-9\.]+/g,""));
//any unknown data will convert to 0
if(dinner <= 0) {
alert("Please enter a valid amount");
return false;
}
var result = dinner*.10;
alert("Your tip is " +"$"+result );
return true;
}
Please tip more!
Just check if the value is numeric - Javascript's isNaN:
if (isNaN(dinner)) {
alert('Bad number, bub.');
return;
}
Or, if you want to allow users to type in both - just number or an amount with $ at the beginning, you can check for first char:
if( dinner.charAt(0) == '$' )
{
dinner = dinner.substring(1);
}
This way, whenever user types $, your app will just remove it. If they type a normal number it will calculate the tip for you...
I'm using the window.atob('string') function to decode a string from base64 to a string. Now I wonder, is there any way to check that 'string' is actually valid base64? I would like to be notified if the string is not base64 so I can perform a different action.
If you want to check whether it can be decoded or not, you can simply try decoding it and see whether it failed:
try {
window.atob(str);
} catch(e) {
// something failed
// if you want to be specific and only catch the error which means
// the base 64 was invalid, then check for 'e.code === 5'.
// (because 'DOMException.INVALID_CHARACTER_ERR === 5')
}
Building on #anders-marzi-tornblad's answer, using the regex to make a simple true/false test for base64 validity is as easy as follows:
var base64regex = /^([0-9a-zA-Z+/]{4})*(([0-9a-zA-Z+/]{2}==)|([0-9a-zA-Z+/]{3}=))?$/;
base64regex.test("SomeStringObviouslyNotBase64Encoded..."); // FALSE
base64regex.test("U29tZVN0cmluZ09idmlvdXNseU5vdEJhc2U2NEVuY29kZWQ="); // TRUE
Update 2021
Following the comments below it transpires this regex-based solution provides a more accurate check than simply try`ing atob because the latter doesn't check for =-padding. According to RFC4648 =-padding may only be ignored for base16-encoding or if the data length is known implicitely.
Regex-based solution also seems to be the fastest as hinted by kai. As jsperf seems flaky atm i made a new test on jsbench which confirms this.
This should do the trick.
function isBase64(str) {
if (str ==='' || str.trim() ===''){ return false; }
try {
return btoa(atob(str)) == str;
} catch (err) {
return false;
}
}
If "valid" means "only has base64 chars in it" then check against /[A-Za-z0-9+/=]/.
If "valid" means a "legal" base64-encoded string then you should check for the = at the end.
If "valid" means it's something reasonable after decoding then it requires domain knowledge.
I would use a regular expression for that. Try this one:
/^([0-9a-zA-Z+/]{4})*(([0-9a-zA-Z+/]{2}==)|([0-9a-zA-Z+/]{3}=))?$/
Explanation:
^ # Start of input
([0-9a-zA-Z+/]{4})* # Groups of 4 valid characters decode
# to 24 bits of data for each group
( # Either ending with:
([0-9a-zA-Z+/]{2}==) # two valid characters followed by ==
| # , or
([0-9a-zA-Z+/]{3}=) # three valid characters followed by =
)? # , or nothing
$ # End of input
This method attempts to decode then encode and compare to the original. Could also be combined with the other answers for environments that throw on parsing errors. Its also possible to have a string that looks like valid base64 from a regex point of view but is not actual base64.
if(btoa(atob(str))==str){
//...
}
This is how it's done in one of my favorite validation libs:
const notBase64 = /[^A-Z0-9+\/=]/i;
export default function isBase64(str) {
assertString(str); // remove this line and make sure you pass in a string
const len = str.length;
if (!len || len % 4 !== 0 || notBase64.test(str)) {
return false;
}
const firstPaddingChar = str.indexOf('=');
return firstPaddingChar === -1 ||
firstPaddingChar === len - 1 ||
(firstPaddingChar === len - 2 && str[len - 1] === '=');
}
https://github.com/chriso/validator.js/blob/master/src/lib/isBase64.js
For me, a string is likely an encoded base64 if:
its length is divisible by 4
uses A-Z a-z 0-9 +/=
only uses = in the end (0-2 chars)
so the code would be
function isBase64(str)
{
return str.length % 4 == 0 && /^[A-Za-z0-9+/]+[=]{0,2}$/.test(str);
}
Implementation in nodejs (validates not just allowed chars but base64 string at all)
const validateBase64 = function(encoded1) {
var decoded1 = Buffer.from(encoded1, 'base64').toString('utf8');
var encoded2 = Buffer.from(decoded1, 'binary').toString('base64');
return encoded1 == encoded2;
}
I have tried the below answers but there are some issues.
var base64regex = /^([0-9a-zA-Z+/]{4})*(([0-9a-zA-Z+/]{2}==)|([0-9a-zA-Z+/]{3}=))?$/;
base64regex.test(value)
when using this it will be true with "BBBBB" capital letters. and also it will be true with "4444".
I added some code to work correctly for me.
function (value) {
var base64regex = /^([0-9a-zA-Z+/]{4})*(([0-9a-zA-Z+/]{2}==)|([0-9a-zA-Z+/]{3}=))?$/;
if (base64regex.test(value) && isNaN(value) && !/^[a-zA-Z]+$/.test(value)) {
return decodeURIComponent(escape(window.atob(value)));
}
Throwing my results into the fray here.
In my case, there was a string that was not base64 but was valid base64 so it was getting decoded into gibberish. (i.e. yyyyyyyy is valid base64 according to the usual regex)
My testing resulted in checking first if the string was a valid base64 string using the regex others shared here and then decrypting it and testing if it was a valid ascii string since (in my case) I should only get ascii characters back. (This can probably be extended to include other characters that may not fall into ascii ranges.)
This is a bit of a mix of multiple answers.
let base64regex = /^([0-9a-zA-Z+/]{4})*(([0-9a-zA-Z+/]{2}==)|([0-9a-zA-Z+/]{3}=))?$/;
function isBase64(str) {
if (str ==='' || str.trim() ===''){ return false; }
try {
if (base64regex.test(str)) {
return /^[\x00-\x7F]*$/.test(atob(str));
} else {
return false
}
} catch (err) {
// catch
}
}
As always with my JavaScript answers, I have no idea what I am doing. So there might be a better way to write this out. But it works for my needs and covers the case when you have a string that isn't supposed to be base64 but is valid and still decrypts as base64.
I know its late, but I tried to make it simple here;
function isBase64(encodedString) {
var regexBase64 = /^([0-9a-zA-Z+/]{4})*(([0-9a-zA-Z+/]{2}==)|([0-9a-zA-Z+/]{3}=))?$/;
return regexBase64.test(encodedString); // return TRUE if its base64 string.
}
What's the "best" way to convert a number to a string (in terms of speed advantage, clarity advantage, memory advantage, etc) ?
Some examples:
String(n)
n.toString()
""+n
n+""
like this:
var foo = 45;
var bar = '' + foo;
Actually, even though I typically do it like this for simple convenience, over 1,000s of iterations it appears for raw speed there is an advantage for .toString()
See Performance tests here (not by me, but found when I went to write my own):
http://jsben.ch/#/ghQYR
Fastest based on the JSPerf test above: str = num.toString();
It should be noted that the difference in speed is not overly significant when you consider that it can do the conversion any way 1 Million times in 0.1 seconds.
Update: The speed seems to differ greatly by browser. In Chrome num + '' seems to be fastest based on this test http://jsben.ch/#/ghQYR
Update 2: Again based on my test above it should be noted that Firefox 20.0.1 executes the .toString() about 100 times slower than the '' + num sample.
In my opinion n.toString() takes the prize for its clarity, and I don't think it carries any extra overhead.
Explicit conversions are very clear to someone that's new to the language. Using type coercion, as others have suggested, leads to ambiguity if a developer is not aware of the coercion rules. Ultimately developer time is more costly than CPU time, so I'd optimize for the former at the cost of the latter. That being said, in this case the difference is likely negligible, but if not I'm sure there are some decent JavaScript compressors that will optimize this sort of thing.
So, for the above reasons I'd go with: n.toString() or String(n). String(n) is probably a better choice because it won't fail if n is null or undefined.
The below are the methods to convert an Integer to String in JS.
The methods are arranged in the decreasing order of performance.
var num = 1
Method 1:
num = `${num}`
Method 2:
num = num + ''
Method 3:
num = String(num)
Method 4:
num = num.toString()
Note: You can't directly call toString() on a number. 2.toString() will throw Uncaught SyntaxError: Invalid or unexpected token.
(The performance test results are given by #DarckBlezzer in his answer)
Other answers already covered other options, but I prefer this one:
s = `${n}`
Short, succinct, already used in many other places (if you're using a modern framework / ES version) so it's a safe bet any programmer will understand it.
Not that it (usually) matters much, but it also seems to be among the fastest compared to other methods.
...JavaScript's parser tries to parse
the dot notation on a number as a floating point literal.
2..toString(); // the second point is correctly recognized
2 .toString(); // note the space left to the dot
(2).toString(); // 2 is evaluated first
Source
Tongue-in-cheek obviously:
var harshNum = 108;
"".split.call(harshNum,"").join("");
Or in ES6 you could simply use template strings:
var harshNum = 108;
`${harshNum}`;
The simplest way to convert any variable to a string is to add an empty string to that variable.
5.41 + '' // Result: the string '5.41'
Math.PI + '' // Result: the string '3.141592653589793'
I used https://jsperf.com to create a test case for the following cases:
number + ''
`${number}`
String(number)
number.toString()
https://jsperf.com/number-string-conversion-speed-comparison
As of 24th of July, 2018 the results say that number + '' is the fastest in Chrome, in Firefox that ties with template string literals.
Both String(number), and number.toString() are around 95% slower than the fastest option.
I recommended `${expression}` because you don't need to worry about errors.
[undefined,null,NaN,true,false,"2","",3].forEach(elem=>{
console.log(`${elem}`, typeof(`${elem}`))
})
/* output
undefined string
null string
NaN string
true string
false string
2 string
string
3 string
*/
Below you can test the speed. but the order will affect the result. (in StackOverflow) you can test it on your platform.
const testCases = [
["${n}", (n) => `${n}`], // 👈
['----', undefined],
[`"" + n`, (n) => "" + n],
[`'' + n`, (n) => '' + n],
[`\`\` + n`, (n) => `` + n],
[`n + ''`, (n) => n + ''],
['----', undefined],
[`String(n)`, (n) => String(n)],
["${n}", (n) => `${n}`], // 👈
['----', undefined],
[`(n).toString()`, (n) => (n).toString()],
[`n.toString()`, (n) => n.toString()],
]
for (const [name, testFunc] of testCases) {
if (testFunc === undefined) {
console.log(name)
continue
}
console.time(name)
for (const n of [...Array(1000000).keys()]) {
testFunc(n)
}
console.timeEnd(name)
}
I'm going to re-edit this with more data when I have time to, for right now this is fine...
Test in nodejs v8.11.2: 2018/06/06
let i=0;
console.time("test1")
for(;i<10000000;i=i+1){
const string = "" + 1234;
}
console.timeEnd("test1")
i=0;
console.time("test1.1")
for(;i<10000000;i=i+1){
const string = '' + 1234;
}
console.timeEnd("test1.1")
i=0;
console.time("test1.2")
for(;i<10000000;i=i+1){
const string = `` + 1234;
}
console.timeEnd("test1.2")
i=0;
console.time("test1.3")
for(;i<10000000;i=i+1){
const string = 1234 + '';
}
console.timeEnd("test1.3")
i=0;
console.time("test2")
for(;i<10000000;i=i+1){
const string = (1234).toString();
}
console.timeEnd("test2")
i=0;
console.time("test3")
for(;i<10000000;i=i+1){
const string = String(1234);
}
console.timeEnd("test3")
i=0;
console.time("test4")
for(;i<10000000;i=i+1){
const string = `${1234}`;
}
console.timeEnd("test4")
i=0;
console.time("test5")
for(;i<10000000;i=i+1){
const string = 1234..toString();
}
console.timeEnd("test5")
i=0;
console.time("test6")
for(;i<10000000;i=i+1){
const string = 1234 .toString();
}
console.timeEnd("test6")
output
test1: 72.268ms
test1.1: 61.086ms
test1.2: 66.854ms
test1.3: 63.698ms
test2: 207.912ms
test3: 81.987ms
test4: 59.752ms
test5: 213.136ms
test6: 204.869ms
If you need to format the result to a specific number of decimal places, for example to represent currency, you need something like the toFixed() method.
number.toFixed( [digits] )
digits is the number of digits to display after the decimal place.
The only valid solution for almost all possible existing and future cases (input is number, null, undefined, Symbol, anything else) is String(x). Do not use 3 ways for simple operation, basing on value type assumptions, like "here I convert definitely number to string and here definitely boolean to string".
Explanation:
String(x) handles nulls, undefined, Symbols, [anything] and calls .toString() for objects.
'' + x calls .valueOf() on x (casting to number), throws on Symbols, can provide implementation dependent results.
x.toString() throws on nulls and undefined.
Note: String(x) will still fail on prototype-less objects like Object.create(null).
If you don't like strings like 'Hello, undefined' or want to support prototype-less objects, use the following type conversion function:
/**
* Safely casts any value to string. Null and undefined are converted to ''.
* #param {*} value
* #return {string}
*/
function string (str) {
return value == null ? '' : (typeof value === 'object' && !value.toString ? '[object]' : String(value));
}
With number literals, the dot for accessing a property must be distinguished from the decimal dot. This leaves you with the following options if you want to invoke to String() on the number literal 123:
123..toString()
123 .toString() // space before the dot 123.0.toString()
(123).toString()
I like the first two since they're easier to read. I tend to use String(n) but it is just a matter of style than anything else.
That is unless you have a line as
var n = 5;
console.log ("the number is: " + n);
which is very self explanatory
I think it depends on the situation but anyway you can use the .toString() method as it is very clear to understand.
.toString() is the built-in typecasting function, I'm no expert to that details but whenever we compare built-in type casting verse explicit methodologies, built-in workarounds always preferred.
If I had to take everything into consideration, I will suggest following
var myint = 1;
var mystring = myint + '';
/*or int to string*/
myint = myint + ''
IMHO, its the fastest way to convert to string. Correct me if I am wrong.
If you are curious as to which is the most performant check this out where I compare all the different Number -> String conversions.
Looks like 2+'' or 2+"" are the fastest.
https://jsperf.com/int-2-string
We can also use the String constructor. According to this benchmark it's the fastest way to convert a Number to String in Firefox 58 even though it's slower than
" + num in the popular browser Google Chrome.
Method toFixed() will also solves the purpose.
var n = 8.434332;
n.toFixed(2) // 8.43
You can call Number object and then call toString().
Number.call(null, n).toString()
You may use this trick for another javascript native objects.
Just come across this recently, method 3 and 4 are not appropriate because how the strings are copied and then put together. For a small program this problem is insignificant, but for any real web application this action where we have to deal with frequency string manipulations can affects the performance and readability.
Here is the link the read.
It seems similar results when using node.js. I ran this script:
let bar;
let foo = ["45","foo"];
console.time('string concat testing');
for (let i = 0; i < 10000000; i++) {
bar = "" + foo;
}
console.timeEnd('string concat testing');
console.time("string obj testing");
for (let i = 0; i < 10000000; i++) {
bar = String(foo);
}
console.timeEnd("string obj testing");
console.time("string both");
for (let i = 0; i < 10000000; i++) {
bar = "" + foo + "";
}
console.timeEnd("string both");
and got the following results:
❯ node testing.js
string concat testing: 2802.542ms
string obj testing: 3374.530ms
string both: 2660.023ms
Similar times each time I ran it.
Just use template literal syntax:
`${this.num}`