So in the game World of Warcraft I have managed to get the remaining time of a mission via their API. The problem for me is that I want to convert this to seconds to then be able to check at which time the mission will finish. If I call the function time() in the game I get a response similar to this 1418569973 which to me, makes no sense. But this is why I need to convert it to seconds, because then I can simply add the amount of seconds I get to the current time and get the end time of the mission.
But my problem is that the when I look into the table that gives me the current time left of a mission it returns a string with the format "X h X min" for example "4 h 34 min". I need to convert that to seconds but I literally have no idea on where to start. I'm thinking of something like removing the "h" and the "min" in a function. But from there I'm not really sure of where to go.
os.time() returns the seconds since epoch. Thus, "1418569973" gives you "12/14/14 03:12:53 PM" UTC. Now, to convert your string to seconds:
local iH, iM = sInput:match "(%d+) h (%d+) min"
iH, iM = tonumber( iH ), tonumber( iM )
local iSec = iH * 3600 + iM * 60
Related
Can anyone explain how to convert a Hex TimeDateStamp DWORD value into human readable format?
I'm just curious as to how a value such as 0x62444DB4 is converted into
"Wednesday, 30 March 2022 10:31:48 PM"
I tried googling of course and could not find any explanation. But there are online converters available.
But I'm just interested in converting these values for myself.
Your value is a 32-bit Timestamp.
Your datetime value is a 32-bit Unix Timestamp: The number of seconds since 1/1/1970.
See https://unixtime.org/
In most programming languages you can work with the hexadecimal notation directly.
Implementation should not be done by one person alone, since a lot of engineering goes into it. Leap years, even leap seconds, timezones, daylight savings time, UTC... all these things need to be addressed when working with a timestamp.
I have added my rough calculation below as a demonstration. Definitely use an existing package or library to work with timestamps.
See the JavaScript code below for demonstration.
There I multiply your value by 1000 because JavaScript works in Milliseconds. But otherwise this applies the same to other systems.
let timestamp = 0x62444DB4;
let dateTime = new Date(timestamp * 1000);
console.log('Timestamp in seconds:', timestamp);
console.log('Human-Readable:', dateTime.toDateString() + ' ' + dateTime.toTimeString());
// Rough output, just for the time.
// Year month and day get really messy with timezones, leap years, etc.
let hours = Math.floor(timestamp/3600) % 24;
let minutes = Math.floor(timestamp/60) % 60;
let seconds = Math.floor(timestamp) % 60;
console.log('Using our own time calculation:', hours + ':' + minutes + ':' + seconds);
Good morning,
I have a little problem there.
I would like work with data from two different time interval.
for example, BTC (1 day time interval) and BTC (4 hour time interval) chart.
The main time interval is the 4 hour. The value "HA_C", this is the close value of "BTC 1 Day".
The "close BTC 1 Day time interval" value displayed correct in the 4 hour chart.
But the value "test" with a simple arithmetic problem differs greatly and is wrong.
You can test this as follows:
Loads the strategy in "BTC", time interval "1 Day",
note from one day the "BTC Close" value and the "test" value.
Then switch to "BTC" 4 hour time interval.
You will see, that the "HA_C Close" from the 1 hour time interval is the correct value,
but the "test" value is displayed incorrectly.
Why is the "test" value after a calculation incorrectly, although the "Close" value is correct ???
I have find out, that the problem is the "ta.ema (source, length)" function. Can someone give me a formula, that calculates the same value as the "ta.ema (source, length)" function.
**// This source code is subject to the terms of the Mozilla Public License 2.0 at https://mozilla.org/MPL/2.0/
// © flashpit
//#version=5
strategy("TEST", process_orders_on_close=true, overlay=true, calc_on_every_tick=true, pyramiding=30)
varip test = 0.0
HA_Symbol = ticker.heikinashi("BINANCE:BTCUSDT")
HA_C = request.security(HA_Symbol, "1D", close)
test:= ta.ema(HA_C, 7) * 1.05
plot (HA_C)
plot (test)**
I have finde the correct code. Here is it:
c2_1D = request.security(ticker.heikinashi('BINANCE:BTCUSDT'), "1D", t3_D (close, T3Length_1D, T3FactorCalc_1D))
It is due to the context you have called the ema function. If your chart is H4 and you perform your test calculation in the global scope, it is using 7 x H4 bars of HA_C. On BTCUSDT, over the last 7 H4 bars, it would have been 7 bars made up of multiples of only 2 daily values, hence the incorrect result.
When you change the chart to D1, it shows the correct result because now the global context of the script is now operating in the same timeframe as the security call.
If you want the correct value from the ema using 7 x 1D bars it has to be done within the context of the security call. For example :
test = request.security(ticker.heikinashi("BINANCE:BTCUSDT"), "D", ta.ema(close, 7))
If you need to perform multiple operations using the same ticker, you can also wrap them in a function and just pass the one function to a single security call. For example, this will return the daily close and the daily ema 7 :
f_ema_and_close(_src, _len) =>
_ema = ta.ema(_src, _len)
[_src, _ema]
[D1_close, D1_ema7] = request.security(ticker.heikinashi("BINANCE:BTCUSDT"), "D", f_ema_and_close(close, 7))
plot(D1_close, color = color.yellow)
plot(D1_ema7, color = color.red)
Suppose I want to run a task once per hour, but at a variable time during the hour. It doesn't have to be truly random; I just don't want to do it at the top of the hour every hour, for example. And I want to do it once per hour only.
This eliminates several obvious approaches, such as sleeping a random amount of time between 30 and 90 minutes, then sleeping again. It would be possible (and pretty likely) for the task to run several times in a row with a sleep of little more than 30 minutes.
The approach I'm thinking about looks like this: every hour, hash the Unix timestamp of the hour, and mod the result by 3600. Add the result to the Unix timestamp of the hour, and that's the moment when the task should run. In pseudocode:
while now = clock.tick; do
// now = a unix timestamp
hour = now - now % 3600;
hash = md5sum(hour);
the_time = hour + hash % 3600;
if now == the_time; then
do_the_work();
end
end
I'm sure this will meet my requirements, but I thought it would be fun to throw this question out and see what ideas other people have!
For the next hour to do work in, just pick a random minute within that hour.
That is, pick a random time for the next interval to do work in; this might be the same interval (hour) as the current interval (hour) if work has carried over from the previous interval.
The "time to sleep" is simply the time until then. This could also be execute "immediately" on a carry-over situation if the random time was before now: this will ensure that a random time is picked each hour, unless work takes more than an hour.
Don't make it more complex than it has to be - there is no reason to hash or otherwise muck with random here. This is how "Enterprise" solutions like SharePoint Timers (with an Hourly Schedule) work.
Schedule your task (with cron or the like) to run at the top of every hour.
At the beginning of your task, sleep for a random amount of time, from 0 to (60 - (the estimated running time of your task + a fudge factor)) minutes.
If you don't want your task to run twice simultaneously, you can use a pid file. The task can check - after sleeping - for this file and wait for the currently running task to finish before starting again.
I've deployed my suggested solution and it is working very well. For example, once per minute I sample some information from a process I'm monitoring, but I do it at variable times during the minute. I created a method of a Timestamp type, called RandomlyWithin, as follows, in Go code:
func (t Timestamp) RandomlyWithin(dur Timestamp, entropy ...uint32) Timestamp {
intervalStart := t - t % dur
toHash := uint32(intervalStart)
if len(entropy) > 0 {
toHash += entropy[0]
}
md5hasher.Reset()
md5hasher.Write([]byte{
uint8(toHash >> 24 & 255),
uint8(toHash >> 16 & 255),
uint8(toHash >> 8 & 255),
uint8(toHash & 255)})
randomNum := binary.BigEndian.Uint32(md5hasher.Sum(nil)[0:4])
result := intervalStart + Timestamp(randomNum)%dur
return result
}
I'm not sure if this behaviour is intended, but it seems a bit weird to me. I'm using the code from How do you get DateTime.parse to return a time in your time zone?
require 'date'
estHoursOffset = +10 # Brisbane/Australia
estOffset = Rational(estHoursOffset, 24)
With some times, the DateTime that's returned is a second earlier:
(DateTime.parse("2012-07-15 16:56:00") - (estHoursOffset/24.0)).new_offset(estOffset)
=> #<DateTime: 2012-07-15T16:55:59+10:00 (2456123.788888889,5/12,2299161)>
But with other times, it seems correct:
(DateTime.parse("2012-07-15 16:16:00") - (estHoursOffset/24.0)).new_offset(estOffset)
=> #<DateTime: 2012-07-15T16:16:00+10:00 (2456123.7611111114,5/12,2299161)>
The program I'm writing only cares about the minutes, which means I'm getting back 16:55 when I want 16:56.
So my questions are;
Is this intentional? (If so, is it documented somewhere - I haven't been able to find anything.)
Is there a simple way of fixing this programmatically? Since I don't care about seconds,I suppose I could "round up" the DateTimes returned, but it'd be good to know if this could bring up any other problems in edge cases.
This is probably because floating point numbers are imprecise - the 10/24.0 you are subtracting cannot be represented exactly.
If instead of subtracting that float you subtracted a rational, ie Rational(estHoursOffset, 24) then you should be ok
I tried both times ("2012-07-15 16:56:00" & "2012-07-15 16:16:00") and Ruby was always yielding the times parsed initially. I don't know mate how you managed to get 1 sec less; it is a miracle!! Only joking :)
If this still is giving you a hard time try getting the date (& time) - simpler like this..:
require 'date'
$date = Time.now #current date/time
puts $date
puts $date.min #if you want to use only the minutes
$date="2012-07-15 16:56:00" #if you want to parse it yourself
Moving on to your questions:
-No this is not international and it could be intermittent as well. I've tested your code above (+10h Australia) & from my location London, England (+1h). ALWAYS GOT the time parsed; never a second less or more.
Now if you need to round up the seconds so you will be 100% sure that each & every time you are getting the same results..:
def round_up(seconds)
divisor = 10**Math.log10(seconds).floor
i = seconds / divisor
remainder = seconds % divisor
if remainder == 0
i * divisor
else
(i + 1) * divisor
end
end
I cannot see why the rounding will cause problems in boundary conditions; as long as you always keep rounding everything! Hope this helps! Good luck mate :)
I'm wishing to figure out how many milliseconds a particular function uses. So I looked high and low, but could not find a way to get the time in Ruby with millisecond precision.
How do you do this? In most programming languages its just something like
start = now.milliseconds
myfunction()
end = now.milliseconds
time = end - start
You can use ruby's Time class. For example:
t1 = Time.now
# processing...
t2 = Time.now
delta = t2 - t1 # in seconds
Now, delta is a float object and you can get as fine grain a result as the class will provide.
You can also use the built-in Benchmark.measure function:
require "benchmark"
puts(Benchmark.measure { sleep 0.5 })
Prints:
0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 ( 0.501134)
Using Time.now (which returns the wall-clock time) as base-lines has a couple of issues which can result in unexpected behavior. This is caused by the fact that the wallclock time is subject to changes like inserted leap-seconds or time slewing to adjust the local time to a reference time.
If there is e.g. a leap second inserted during measurement, it will be off by a second. Similarly, depending on local system conditions, you might have to deal with daylight-saving-times, quicker or slower running clocks, or the clock even jumping back in time, resulting in a negative duration, and many other issues.
A solution to this issue is to use a different time of clock: a monotonic clock. This type of clock has different properties than the wall clock.
It increments monitonically, i.e. never goes back and increases at a constant rate. With that, it does not represent the wall-clock (i.e. the time you read from a clock on your wall) but a timestamp you can compare with a later timestamp to get a difference.
In Ruby, you can use such a timestamp with Process.clock_gettime(Process::CLOCK_MONOTONIC) like follows:
t1 = Process.clock_gettime(Process::CLOCK_MONOTONIC)
# => 63988.576809828
sleep 1.5 # do some work
t2 = Process.clock_gettime(Process::CLOCK_MONOTONIC)
# => 63990.08359163
delta = t2 - t1
# => 1.5067818019961123
delta_in_milliseconds = delta * 1000
# => 1506.7818019961123
The Process.clock_gettime method returns a timestamp as a float with fractional seconds. The actual number returned has no defined meaning (that you should rely on). However, you can be sure that the next call will return a larger number and by comparing the values, you can get the real time difference.
These attributes make the method a prime candidate for measuring time differences without seeing your program fail in the least opportune times (e.g. at midnight at New Year's Eve when there is another leap-second inserted).
The Process::CLOCK_MONOTONIC constant used here is available on all modern Linux, BSD, and macOS systems as well as the Linux Subsystem for Windows. It is however not yet available for "raw" Windows systems. There, you can use the GetTickCount64 system call instead of Process.clock_gettime which also returns a timer value in millisecond granularity on Windows (>= Windows Vista, Windows Server 2008).
With Ruby, you can call this function like this:
require 'fiddle'
# Get a reference to the function once
GetTickCount64 = Fiddle::Function.new(
Fiddle.dlopen('kernel32.dll')['GetTickCount64'],
[],
-Fiddle::TYPE_LONG_LONG # unsigned long long
)
timestamp = GetTickCount64.call / 1000.0
# => 63988.576809828
You should take a look at the benchmark module to perform benchmarks. However, as a quick and dirty timing method you can use something like this:
def time
now = Time.now.to_f
yield
endd = Time.now.to_f
endd - now
end
Note the use of Time.now.to_f, which unlike to_i, won't truncate to seconds.
Also we can create simple function to log any block of code:
def log_time
start_at = Time.now
yield if block_given?
execution_time = (Time.now - start_at).round(2)
puts "Execution time: #{execution_time}s"
end
log_time { sleep(2.545) } # Execution time: 2.55s
Use Time.now.to_f
The absolute_time gem is a drop-in replacement for Benchmark, but uses native instructions to be far more accurate.
If you use
date = Time.now.to_i
You're obtaining time in seconds, that is far from accurate, specially if you are timing little chunks of code.
The use of Time.now.to_i return the second passed from 1970/01/01. Knowing this you can do
date1 = Time.now.to_f
date2 = Time.now.to_f
diff = date2 - date1
With this you will have difference in second magnitude. If you want it in milliseconds, just add to the code
diff = diff * 1000
I've a gem which can profile your ruby method (instance or class) - https://github.com/igorkasyanchuk/benchmark_methods.
No more code like this:
t = Time.now
user.calculate_report
puts Time.now - t
Now you can do:
benchmark :calculate_report # in class
And just call your method
user.calculate_report