Facing conflict between endeca searchable character & phrase search.
I have a word sequence for eg. hello "world. "(Double quote) is needed here.
1) Phrasing " (double qoutes special character) is enabled for search by putting it into pipeline file Project_name.search_chars.xml.
2) If I remove " from Project_name.search_chars.xml , phrasing is working properly but I am not able to search the term containing " (quotes special character in it.)
I have also tried some escape characters -
1) "hello ""world"
2) "hello \"world"
3) "hello """world"
Nothing seems working here for me.
Can anyone suggest any configuration solution for this.
If I understand your question you want to be able to search for " but not mess up the phrase functionality which under the hood creates quoted strings.
A possible work around is to perform substitution when loading the data into endeca as well as during search.
Replace the " character in your data set with something that is not currently used (a ~ is a likely choice) and make that character searchable. Next have some pre-process code replace any incoming " characters with the selected substitution so that endeca knows how to process it.
Once this is done phrase will continue to behave as expected.
We have successfully implemented this type of solution with the dash character.
Related
Has anyone tried this using the Mapping Dataflows?
Example input field is:
"This is a sentence, it contains ""double quotes"" and a comma"
The escape character is a " and the quote character is a ".
When I use a regular Copy activity this works without a problem, however
when using the same Dataset in a Mapping Dataflow it gets parsed into 2 fields instead of one. In fact changing the escape character makes no difference.
Closing this issue. I've realised that output still has the \ as the escape character so when opening the output file in Excel it appears corrupted
Before you go marking this as a duplicate hear me out
My question;
A: has different requirements than all the others (which are basically "whats an escape character?") Including: not having to use an external file to enter in parameters to functions
B: questions the existence of this mess rather than accepting 'no' or 'its complicated' as the answer
C: understands that there are escape characters that already exist and ways to work around that
D: comes from a different skill level and isn't a 2-7 years old question
E: requires the use of quotes rather than something like [ because quotes are the only thing that works with spaced strings
Also before ya'll say I didn't try stuff
I read these (all of it including comments and such):
Batch character escaping
http://www.robvanderwoude.com/escapechars.php
https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/oldnewthing/20091029-00/?p=16213
using batch echo with special characters
Escape angle brackets in a Windows command prompt
Pass, escape and recognize Special Character in Windows Batch File
I didn't understand that all fully, because to fully understand all that I'd have to be much better at batch but here is what I gleaned:
So I understand theres a whole table of escape sequences, that ^ is the most used one, that you can use Delayed Expansion to do this task so that the characters don't get parsed immediately, just 'expanded' at runtime, but then that the Enable Delayed expansion thing doesn't always work because with pipe characters, the other files/things being piped to/from don't inherit the expansion status so
A: you have to enable it there too
B: that forces you to use that expansion
C: it requires multiple escape characters for each parsing pass of the CLI which apparently is hard to determine and ugly to look at.
This all seems rather ridiculous, why wasn't there some sort of creation to set a string of odd inputs to literal rather than process the characters. Why wasn't it just a simple flag upon some super duper special character (think alt character) that would almost never appear unless you set the font to wingdings. Why does each parsing pass of pipe characters remove the escape characters? That just makes everything insane because the user now has to know how many times that string is used. Why hasn't a tool been developed to auto scan through odd inputs and auto escape them? We have a table of the rules, is it really that hard? Has it been done already? What would it require that's 'hard'?
Down the rabbit hole we go
How did I get here you ask? Well it all started when I made a simple trimming function and happened upon one of the biggest problems in batch, escaping characters when receiving inputs. The problem is alot of my inputs to my trimming function had quotes. Quotes are escaped by using "" in place of " so something like
::SETUP
::parenthesis is just to deliniate where it goes, it isn't
::actually in
::the code
set "var=(stuff goes here)"
call :TrimFunc "%var%",var
:TrimFunc
::the + are just to display the spacing otherwise I can't tell
echo beginning param1 is +%~1+
::code goes here for func
gotoEOF
::END SETUP
::NOTE the + characters aren't part of the actual value, just the
::display when I run this function
set "var=""a"""
::got +"a"+
will work but
set "var="a "
::got +"a+
::expected +"a +
set "var="a ""
::got +"a+
::expected +"a "+
set "var="a " "
::got +"a+
::expected +"a " +
set "var="a"
::got +"a",var+
::expected +"a+
will not work as expected. oddly,
set "var="a""
::got +"a"+
seemes to work despite not being escaped fully. Adding any spaces seems to disrupt this edge case.
Oddly enough I've tried doing:
set 'var="a"'
::got ++
::expected +"a"+
But I have no idea what changing ' to " actually does when its the one that contains the argument (not the ones that are supposed to be literal).
To see what would happen and
What I want:
Surely there must be some sort of universal escape character thing such that I can do this (assume the special character was *)
set *var=""something " "" " """*
call :TrimFunc "%var%",var
echo +%~1+
would net me
+""something " "" " """+
with no problems. In fact, why can't I have some universal escape character that can just be used to take in all the other characters inside it literally instead of the command line trying to process them? Perhaps I'm thinking about this wrong but this seems to be a recurring problem with weird inputs all over. I just want my vairbales, pipes and strings and all that to just STAY LITERAL WHEN THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO. I just want a way to have any input and not have any weird output, it should just treat everything literally untill I want it not to because it was enclosed by the mystical super special character that I just invented in my mind.
::noob rant
I don't see why this was never a thing. Whats preventing the makers of this highly useful language from simply creating a flag and some character that is never used to be the supremo escape character. Why do we need like 10 different ways of escaping characters? I should be able to programatically escape inputs if necessary, it should NEVER be the users job to escape their inputs, thats absolutely ridiculous and probably a violation of every good coding standard in existence
::END noob rant
Anyways. I'd be happy to be enlightened as to why the above is or isn't a thing. I just want to be able to use quotes IN A STRING (kinda important) And I can't comprehend why its not as simple as having one giant "treat these things as literals" flag that ALWAYS JUST WORKS(tm).
By the way, In case you're wondering why my function takes in the name of the variable it's writing to, I couldn't figure out how to get labels inside labels working without using delayed expansion. Using that means the variable I'm making is local not global so I use the name of the global variable to basically set it (using it's name) to the local value on return like this:
endlocal & set "%~2=%String%"
Feel free to yell at me on various things because I am 99% certain I'm doing something horribly syntactically wrong, have some bad misunderstandings or am simply way to naive to truly understand the complexity of this problem but to me it seems amazingly superfluous.
Why can't the last quote be used like the special character it is but any preceeding ones are taken literally (maybe depending upon a flag)
for example
set "var="a ""
why doesn't the ending two quotes act specially and the ones in between act literally? Can the CLI not tell where the line ends? Can it not tell the difference between the first and last quotes and the ones in between? This seems simple to implement to me.
As long as I can echo things properly and save their literal value from parameter to variable I'm happy.
Firstly, I'm don't really understand why you will want to use set "var=something" instead of set var=something, it doesn't seems to have difference.
Secondly, hope that helps, which I have (recently? IDK.) invented a method to deal with the annoying quotes. Hope this batch inspires or helps you to do sth similar.
#echo off
title check for length of string
color de
mode con: cols=90 lines=25
goto t
:t
set str=error
set /p str=Please enter four characters:
set len=0
goto sl
:sl
call set this=%%str:~%len%%%
if not "%this%" == "" (set /a len+=1 & rem debug" == "" (set /a len+=1
goto sl)
if not "%len%" == "4" (set n= not) else (set n=)
echo This is%n% a four character string.
pause >nul
exit
Which in your case:
if not "%var%" == "" (call :TrimFunc "%var%",var & rem debug" == "" (call :TrimFunc "%var%,var)
)
Hope that helps. Add oil~ (My computer doesn't support delayexpansion with unknown reason. Therefore, most of the codes are a bit clumsy.)
P.S.: If you are simply removing text and not replacing text, why not use set var=%var:string=%? If the string required is a variable too, then you can try this: call set var=%%var:%string%=%%
I can search the following without problems:
_GET
$variable
However, sublime fails to search $_ (p.e. $_GET.) I have tried to escape it somehow:
$\_GET
\$_GET
$__GET
I'm on Ubuntu 14.04LTS
Turn off the regular expressions search. It is the button on the far left of the search field (in this picture currently selected):
With regular expressions turned off:
Although I'm not sure if this would fit your exact problem since you tried escaping using \$_, this answer may still help for posterity.
Did you also make sure "whole word" search is turned off? That's the 3rd button from the left (next to the Aa)
With whole word turned on:
Failing with the attempted escaped \$_:
And it succeeding with _GET:
Note that whole word search of $_ would succeed if there was a whole $_ phrase, surrounded by whitespace. For example with whole word search on:
I am a sentence with the keyword $_ which will be matched.
would work, whereas:
I am a sentence with the keyword $_GET, which will never match. $_POST, $_REQUEST, and $_SERVER won't work either.
would break the whole word search.
Here's my problem:
I need to store sentences "somewhere" (it doesn't matter where).
The sentences must not contain spaces.
When I extract the sentences from that "somewhere", I need to restore the spaces.
So, before storing the sentence "I am happy" I could replace the spaces with a safe character, such as &. In C#:
theString.Replace(' ', '&');
This would yield 'I&am&happy'.
And when retrieving the sentence, I would to the reverse:
theString.Replace('&', ' ');
But what if the original sentence already contains the '&' character?
Say I would do the same thing with the sentence 'I am happy & healthy'. With the design above, the string would come back as 'I am happy healthy', since the '&' char has been replaced with a space.
(Of course, I could change the & character to a more unlikely symbol, such as ¤, but I want this to be bullet proof)
I used to know how to solve this, but I forgot how.
Any ideas?
Thanks!
Fredrik
Maybe you can use url encoding (percent encoding) as an inspiration.
Characters that are not valid in a url are escaped by writing %XX where XX is a numeric code that represents the character. The % sign itself can also be escaped in the same way, so that way you never run into problems when translating it back to the original string.
There are probably other similar encodings, and for your own application you can use an & just as well as a %, but by using an existing encoding like this, you can probably also find existing functions to do the encoding and decoding for you.
Was hoping someone could help me with an issue I am having with escape characters in Cucumber/Watir.
I have automated tests setup. When I perform a search, 1 of the assertions I use to verify that the search has returned the correct result is to check the page for text. So my code looks like this:
Then /^I should see the following text: "([^"]*)"$/ do |str|
assert #browser.text.include?(str)
end
Here I pass in the text to search for in the string variable. e.g nike, reebok etc
So in my feature file the step is like this:
Then I should see the following text "search results for nike"
This works fine apart from 1 issue. 1 of the sites I am testing has decided to put the search term in double quotes i.e - search results for "nike"
As a result this screws up my test as I need to include the quotes as part of the search term. Therefore I need to put the word nike in escape quotes or else cucumber will recognise the first quotation around the word nike as a closing quotation. (as there is already a double quotes before it)
I have tried various different escape characters but nothing seems to work. For example I have tried the following:
\" – double quote
\\ – single backslash
Has anyone experienced similar problems and if so, how did you overcome the problem?
Thanks!
You need to change the regex rather than the string.
Problem: Your current regex says "([^"]*)", which says to match all characters between the quotations that are not quotations. This is not good given that you want to include quotations.
Solution: Change the step to the following:
Then /^I should see the following text: "(.*?)"$/ do |str|
assert #browser.text.include?(str)
end
The .* says to match all characters between the quotations. The ? makes the search lazy (instead of greedy). The ? is optional in this case, but would be important if there were additional parameters being captured. A good explanation of the greedy vs lazy can be seen at http://www.regular-expressions.info/repeat.html.