Batch file to rename a file with time and date
alexan...@googlemail.com
I have a batch file that renames a file and appends the time on the
end of the filename. What I need it to do is append both the time and
date at the same time. My line of code is:
for /f "tokens=1-5 delims=:" %%d in ("%time%") do rename
"filename.xls" "filename"%%d-%%e-%%f.xls
I'm sure i can do this in one line but not sure how to add the %date%
in correctly
Any help appreciated
Thanks
foxidrive
Try something like this (the tokens and token order are locale dependant):
for /f "tokens=1-3,6-8 delims=:/-. " %%a in ("%time% %date%") do (
rename "filename.xls" "filename-%%f%%d%%e-%%a.%%b.%%c.xls")
If it's not right and you can't sort out the tokens then reply with the output
from this:
echo "%time% %date%"
billious
<alexan...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:940949db-a3dc-4df5...@e1g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
"%time%" becomes "%date%%time%" and adjust your token range and delimiters
Date/time manipulation is the unchallenged #1 FAQ in alt.msdos.batch.nt (for
the NT version of batch, which is substantially different from the DOS/9x
version discussed in this group.) Look for Timo Salmi's periodic "hints" in
that group - but be warned - %date% and %time% formats are USER-dependent,
and follow the preferences established for the individual user.
alexa...@tesco.net
> On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 03:24:46 -0800 (PST), "alexander...@googlemail.com"
Got the tokens sorted out with what you posted, this displays
"filename -dd-mm-yyyy hh:mm":
for /f "tokens=1-3,6-8 delims=:/-. " %%a in ("%time% %date%") do
(rename "filename" "filename-%%f%%d%%e-%%a.%%b.%%c.xls")
Thanks for the help!
Dr J R Stockton
com>, Fri, 23 Nov 2007 20:00:13, billious <billio...@hotmail.com>
posted:
>Date/time manipulation is the unchallenged #1 FAQ in alt.msdos.batch.nt (for
>the NT version of batch, which is substantially different from the DOS/9x
>version discussed in this group.) Look for Timo Salmi's periodic "hints" in
>that group - but be warned - %date% and %time% formats are USER-dependent,
>and follow the preferences established for the individual user.
In some on-topic Windows systems, and AFAIK in all off-topic ones (I
don't know 64-bit or Vista), one can rely on Windows Script Host.
ISTM better to generate the whole name, or at least the whole date/time
part, in WSH.
To set environment FN to a file name 'myfileYYYYMMDDhhmmss.txt' :
Put the following into a .js file, say $33.js :
with (new Date()) WScript.echo("set FN=myfile" +
( getFullYear()*1e10 + (getMonth()+1)*1e8 + getDate()*1e6 +
getHours()*1e4 + getMinutes()*1e2 + getSeconds() ) + ".txt")
Execute with
cscript //nologo $$33.js > $$33.bat
Execute $33.bat, tidy up, use environment variable FN.
Or similarly with $$33.vbs :
N = Now
WScript.echo "set FN=myfile" & _
( Year(N)*1e10 + Month(N)*1e8 + Day(N)*1e6 + _
Hour(N)*1e4 + Minute(N)*1e2 + Second(N) ) & ".txt"
One should of course use the logical YYYY MM DD hh mm ss scheme,
unless local prejudice forces otherwise.
If necessary, the generation use and deletion of what is here $33.js can
be packed into a *.BAT file in the usual manner.
XP & FU a.m.b.nt
--
(c) John Stockton, Surrey, UK. ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk DOS 3.3, 6.20 ; WinXP.
Web <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> - FAQqish topics, acronyms & links.
PAS EXE TXT ZIP via <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/programs/00index.htm>
My DOS <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/batfiles.htm> - also batprogs.htm.
George K.
> In some on-topic Windows systems, and AFAIK in all off-topic ones (I
> don't know 64-bit or Vista), one can rely on Windows Script Host.
You can never rely on WSH. It's not working on too many systems.
Todd Vargo
"Not working"? or Blocked by Admin? One thing is for certain, all systems
out of ones control will always be questionable. Systems within your control
can be tweaked to mostly work.
George K.
> George K. wrote:
>> You can never rely on WSH. It's not working on too many systems.
>
> "Not working"? or Blocked by Admin? One thing is for certain, all systems
Blocked - deleted - not working. That has nothing to do with 'blocked by
admin'. It's just a few mouse clicks to switch it off.
> out of ones control will always be questionable. Systems within your control
> can be tweaked to mostly work.
I agree with you, but that was not the subject. I had to correct the
false statement 'one can rely on Windows Script Host'.
foxidrive
>I agree with you, but that was not the subject. I had to correct the
>false statement 'one can rely on Windows Script Host'.
What one can rely on is that it will be available on a default installation,
and has been for quite some time.
George K.
That's why many people follow instructions like
http://www.sophos.com/support/knowledgebase/article/10359.html to turn
it off.
As long as you run the scripts on machines under your own control
there's nothing wrong with using WSH. However, you can't deploy WSH
scripts reliably to unknown targets.
foxidrive
>foxidrive wrote:
>> On Sat, 24 Nov 2007 23:10:57 GMT, "George K." <geo...@notvalid.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I agree with you, but that was not the subject. I had to correct the
>>> false statement 'one can rely on Windows Script Host'.
>>
>> What one can rely on is that it will be available on a default installation,
>> and has been for quite some time.
>
>That's why many people follow instructions ... to turn it off.
I take it that you have data that substantiates your claim? :) It would be my
guess that most people running on stand-alone machines don't even know that WSH
is installed.
>As long as you run the scripts on machines under your own control
>there's nothing wrong with using WSH. However, you can't deploy WSH
>scripts reliably to unknown targets.
Well the same goes for most batch files - they don't tend to work terribly well
on MACS. :)
I have no qualms with people providing WSH solutions and even do so myself at
times - it is a tool just like any other that batch files can utilise.
George K.
> I take it that you have data that substantiates your claim? :) It would be my
The only data available is that every anti virus vendor has at least one
article on their site that describes how to disable WSH.
> guess that most people running on stand-alone machines don't even know that WSH
> is installed.
My guess is that there's not many people left running stand-alone
machines. I certainly don't know anybody personally, maybe you do.
>> As long as you run the scripts on machines under your own control
>> there's nothing wrong with using WSH. However, you can't deploy WSH
>> scripts reliably to unknown targets.
>
> Well the same goes for most batch files - they don't tend to work terribly well
> on MACS. :)
Where did you get this information from? Almost all batch files as well
as WSH scripts run perfectly well on MACs, why would they not?
foxidrive
Feel free to post wrt batch files from time to time.
Todd Vargo
> Thanks for the chat, George.
> Feel free to post wrt batch files from time to time.
Don't hold your breath.
Mike Jones
> foxidrive wrote:
>> I take it that you have data that substantiates your claim? :) It
>> would be my
>
> The only data available is that every anti virus vendor has at least one
> article on their site that describes how to disable WSH.
>
>
>> guess that most people running on stand-alone machines don't even know
>> that WSH
>> is installed.
>
> My guess is that there's not many people left running stand-alone
> machines. I certainly don't know anybody personally, maybe you do.
>
>
virus/trojans; I would if I was a sysadmin in a big corp.
>>> As long as you run the scripts on machines under your own control
>>> there's nothing wrong with using WSH. However, you can't deploy WSH
>>> scripts reliably to unknown targets.
>>
>> Well the same goes for most batch files - they don't tend to work
>> terribly well
>> on MACS. :)
>
> Where did you get this information from? Almost all batch files as well
> as WSH scripts run perfectly well on MACs, why would they not?
IMHO this is quite unlikley as MAC and Wintel are quite different
Operating Environments.
Timo Salmi
Quite. Besides this has become beating a dead horse. The essence from
the point of view of these newsgroups is that, when available, WSH gives
the date and time independently of the locale, just as put forward. As
already noted this date/time FAQ issue has been mulled many times over
anyway.
We are not here as paid consultants for corporates and thus the WSH
solutions can be considered one valid option, whatever their policies.
If not, that's what the paid programming services are for.
All the best, Timo
--
Prof. Timo Salmi ftp & http://garbo.uwasa.fi/ archives 193.166.120.5
Department of Accounting and Business Finance ; University of Vaasa
mailto:t...@uwasa.fi <http://www.uwasa.fi/~ts/> ; FIN-65101, Finland
Useful script files and tricks ftp://garbo.uwasa.fi/pc/link/tscmd.zip
George K.
>>> Well the same goes for most batch files - they don't tend to work
>>> terribly well
>>> on MACS. :)
>>
>> Where did you get this information from? Almost all batch files as
>> well as WSH scripts run perfectly well on MACs, why would they not?
>
> IMHO this is quite unlikley as MAC and Wintel are quite different
> Operating Environments.
Charles Dye
wrote:
A batch file to test the availability of WSH might be relevant....
--
Charles Dye ras...@highfiber.com
Todd Vargo
> Todd Vargo wrote:
> >foxidrive wrote:
> >> Thanks for the chat, George.
> >> Feel free to post wrt batch files from time to time.
> >
> >Don't hold your breath.
>
> A batch file to test the availability of WSH might be relevant....
Perhaps, but out of all the WSH embedded batch files posted to these groups,
I do not recall anyone reporting such batches having failed because WSH was
disabled. However, since George appears to believe otherwise, let's leave it
to him to offer such a batch solution, taking into consideration the groups
this thread is crossposted to.
--
Todd Vargo
(Post questions to group only. Remove "z" to email personal messages)
Todd Vargo
MACS do not come with Windows preinstalled, or did you forget which side of
the technical discussion you was supporting.
Dr J R Stockton
>, Sun, 25 Nov 2007 19:21:12, Mike Jones <ad...@127.0.0.1> posted:
>I'd suggest that most corporate PCs have WSH disabled, to avoid script
>virus/trojans; I would if I was a sysadmin in a big corp.
If you were a sysadmin in a big corp, you probably would not be using a
Google account to post, in a.m.b, what is obviously an a.m.b.nt
question.
The essential point seems to be that Dos..Win98/ME batch (and AFAIK
NT/XP batch), unaided, cannot reliably determine Y, M, D if the output
format of the date command is unknown.
IIRC, a DEBUG script can fairly readily read the date components from
the RTC; and that should be satisfactory except close to midnight. A
script can reasonably read the date and time from the software clock,
which, as previously established, is the right clock to use because it
is what other software generally uses. Of course, a sufficiently large
script collection can do anything that's needed.
(Note : since the absolute exact time is rarely needed as such,
consistency with the rest of the system is more important that
absolute accuracy. Those who insist on perfection in their part
of the corporate work may need to have the rest of the corporate
systems also made perfect.)
In any higher-level language - and a sysadmin team should have at least
one such available - one can readily write a simple program to put, on
standard output for redirection to a batch file and execution, a list of
SET commands to set date and time components, including if needed CMJD,
ordinal date, and ISO Y W D, into environment variables.
The essential point is that the OP's request is one for which unaided
Batch does not provide a satisfactory solution independent of local
settings, and that various forms of aid are available.
--
(c) John Stockton, Surrey, UK. ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v6.05 IE 6.
Web <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> - w. FAQish topics, links, acronyms
PAS EXE etc : <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/programs/> - see 00index.htm
Dates - miscdate.htm moredate.htm js-dates.htm pas-time.htm critdate.htm etc.
Mike Jones
>> , Sun, 25 Nov 2007 19:21:12, Mike Jones <ad...@127.0.0.1> posted:
(In response to a completely snipped question)
>
>> I'd suggest that most corporate PCs have WSH disabled, to avoid script
>> virus/trojans; I would if I was a sysadmin in a big corp.
>
> If you were a sysadmin in a big corp, you probably would not be using a
> Google account to post, in a.m.b, what is obviously an a.m.b.nt
> question.
>
> The essential point
...
Well yes, but I felt we had moved on to whether wscript was enabled or not.
Still, you brought it back to the legendary Date&Time no.1 FAQ, so I'll
let it lie.
George K.
> Perhaps, but out of all the WSH embedded batch files posted to these groups,
> I do not recall anyone reporting such batches having failed because WSH was
> disabled. However, since George appears to believe otherwise, let's leave it
You shouldn't assume that the entire knowledge of this world is
concentrated in these groups, in particular in your postings.
Fortunately, not everybody relies blindly on your expertise. ;)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WSH
> to him to offer such a batch solution, taking into consideration the groups
> this thread is crossposted to.
Thank you again for making arrangements on behalf of somebody else. I
don't need this script as I know WSH is not available reliably.
Todd Vargo
> Todd Vargo wrote:
> > Charles Dye wrote:
> > > A batch file to test the availability of WSH might be relevant....
> > Perhaps, but out of all the WSH embedded batch files posted to these
A keen dodge from posting batch code that might be relevant (as Charles Dye
put it). The regulars of these groups post batch code regularly that we have
no need for ourselves. Too bad you refuse to redeem yourself by posting
anything more than drivel. ;(
George K.
> George K. wrote:
> groups
>>> this thread is crossposted to.
>> Thank you again for making arrangements on behalf of somebody else. I
>> don't need this script as I know WSH is not available reliably.
>
> A keen dodge from posting batch code that might be relevant (as Charles Dye
> put it). The regulars of these groups post batch code regularly that we have
> no need for ourselves. Too bad you refuse to redeem yourself by posting
> anything more than drivel. ;(
Instead of carrying on picking on others you should start thinking about
the nonsense you're spreading around.
Be happy with your scripting host, use it, drink it, and eat it, if you
like. ;)
If you believe you can write a batch file to determine whether it's
available or not, just do it.
I'd start here:
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/scriptcenter/guide/sas_sbp_lhak.mspx?mfr=true
Erm, sorry, according to this page your users are told already by the
engine that it's switched off. ;(
Well, maybe it doesn't cover the broken file association. I'm sure
you'll find a solution that utilizes ftype and assoc to find out whether
you have green light or not.
Hold on, how about the script engine's executable? The target machine
could have a different exe file. No problem either for you, right?
All you have to do is obtain a collection of MD5 hashes from the script
engine's executable module for all available versions of Windows, maybe
even including different language versions. You can then compare your
database with the found environment. A piece of cake, right?
Much easier could be to just try to execute a script and see if it works
(actually: worked). Unfortunately, that doesn't cover the third-party
scripting hosts that provide only limited functionality. The script
doesn't need everything anyway, hence I reckon that's the way to go for
although I know that this still won't work on some machines. ;)
It looks like you got a lot to do!
In spite of the *how* I don't really know *why* you want to do this -
you must be Robin Hood in the twenty-first century! ;)
Now, enough useless picking and back to my solution:
* Freely use WSH on computers that are under your control and you know
that WSH works.
* Don't use WSH on computers that are not under your control, like
customer's computers, many company environments, etc.
Easy, isn't it? Saves a lot of hassle.
Maybe, I even could have posted this solution without picking on you. ;)
And you know what? I *did*. Use your mouse and go up a few posts.
George K.
> MACS do not come with Windows preinstalled, or did you forget which side of
> the technical discussion you was supporting.
I can't see your point here. PCs don't necessarily come with Windows
preinstalled either. I don't know why MACs were brought into the
discussion. I reckon it was because foxidrive didn't know about VM
technology.
Todd Vargo
>
> Instead of carrying on picking on others you should start thinking about
> the nonsense you're spreading around.
Actually, that is something you need to think seriously about. This whole
issue started with your unwarranted complaint of full quoting. You have
already wasted *everyone's* time exponentially with your continued flaming
retorts just because your complaint was deemed inappropriate. Get a clue and
stop wasting your life away.
George K.
> George K. wrote:
>> Instead of carrying on picking on others you should start thinking about
>> the nonsense you're spreading around.
>
> Actually, that is something you need to think seriously about. This whole
> issue started with your unwarranted complaint of full quoting. You have
Wrong thread and wrong statement. For me and anybody who followed this
thread, the 'issue' started with:
> In some on-topic Windows systems, and AFAIK in all off-topic ones (I
> don't know 64-bit or Vista), one can rely on Windows Script Host.
Anyway, you might want to remember that this is a newsgroup. Please
refrain from calling something 'unwarranted' just because you have a
different opinion. If you believe that something is inappropriate then
prove it. Maybe links, references, anything despite your own logic.
I'll help you with 'my unwarranted one' from the wrong thread
(http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/usenet/brox.html), and if you google
around you'll probably find many more. Wrong thread, I know, but you
brought it up here.
It's a pity how you make a 'technical discussion' (as you called it) to
your personal fight just because it turned out that I may have been
right on WSH and because I - rightfully - asked whether you really had
to full-quote half of the highway code in a different thread. It's quite
entertaining how you avoided to even think for one second that I may
have been right on that one too.
> already wasted *everyone's* time exponentially with your continued flaming
> retorts just because your complaint was deemed inappropriate. Get a clue and
> stop wasting your life away.
I know you think you are *everyone* and I have a clear understanding now
what 'flaming retort' means when you 'deem something inappropriate'.
You and me are not alone here, and probably we both have to learn our
lessons. However, I can't get rid of the feeling that you should sit
down and study social behaviour a little bit longer than me. ;)
No offence, please. Just read it and think about it.
Todd Vargo
> Todd Vargo wrote:
> > issue started with your unwarranted complaint of full quoting. You have
>
> Wrong thread and wrong statement. For me and anybody who followed this
> thread, the 'issue' started with:
The point of fact is, your personal attack on me began with that thread. You
carried over your same spiteful attitude to this thread.
>
> > In some on-topic Windows systems, and AFAIK in all off-topic ones (I
> > don't know 64-bit or Vista), one can rely on Windows Script Host.
>
>
> Anyway, you might want to remember that this is a newsgroup. Please
> refrain from calling something 'unwarranted' just because you have a
> different opinion. If you believe that something is inappropriate then
> prove it. Maybe links, references, anything despite your own logic.
I already did! If you recall, I had two additional posts to that thread
where quoting was pruned *prior* to your protest which you completely
ignored for the sake of starting a globally distributed argument. If you
still think you are right then so be it in your mind, but the undisputable
fact remains, you have already created more disruption and wasted more time
than having read a single full quoted message, which I'll remind you again,
was relevant to the code I posted, whether your opinion thinks so or not.
Relating to this thread... You protested my, "out of all the WSH embedded
batch files posted to these groups, I do not recall anyone reporting such
batches having failed because WSH was disabled", but provided no actual
proof such a complaint existed. If your purpose was to discredit my
statement, then actual proof would be better than a link to general WSH
information.
You claimed you had no need for WSH detection code as an excuse for not
providing a code solution, but then you wasted more time posting links that
explains how to disable WSH or reassign WSH file extensions (which IMO
follows the wrong path to the purpose), than just posting a solution. I read
Charles Dye's challenge as (YMMV): to detect if the batch has normal
availability not the reasons it does not. To that extent an attempt to run a
simple script and test it's result is sufficient for the task. If WSH is
unavailable, the test is sufficient to abort the remainder of the batch.
It's the KISS principal. If WSH puts up a disabled or restricted report, I
consider that a bonus.
Here is WSH detection in simple form...
@echo off
echo Wscript.Echo "set WSHavailable=1" >test.vbs
cscript /nologo test.vbs >test.bat
call test.bat
del test.bat
del test.vbs
if not 1.==%WSHavailable%. goto :abortbat
...
Now getting back to the issue at hand, if you have nothing relevant or
useful to contribute to the purposes of these newsgroups, please refrain
from further posting as I am confident my statement that 'you are wasting
*everyone's* time', remains an undisputable fact.
Best wishes to you in this holiday season.
Timo Salmi
> Here is WSH detection in simple form...
> @echo off
> echo Wscript.Echo "set WSHavailable=1" >test.vbs
> cscript /nologo test.vbs >test.bat
> call test.bat
> del test.bat
> del test.vbs
> if not 1.==%WSHavailable%. goto :abortbat
Excellent, Todd. Now that makes a very nice new FAQ item (I'll limit it
to the NT-series and hence I drop alt.msdos.batch from the potential
follow-ups)
DRAFT
161) How do I test that the Windows Script Host is available?
@echo off & setlocal enableextensions
echo Wscript.Echo "@set WSHavailable=1">"%temp%\test$$.vbs"
cscript /nologo "%temp%\test$$.vbs" > "%temp%\test$$.bat"
for %%c in (call del) do %%c "%temp%\test$$.bat"
del "%temp%\test$$.vbs"
if not "%WSHavailable%"=="1" (echo Windows Script Host is not not
available & goto :EOF)
echo Windows Script Host is available, continuing
rem Whatever
endlocal & goto :EOF
References/Comments:
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=y_j4j.50032$eY.29616%40newssvr13.news.prodigy.net
George K.
> The point of fact is, ...
[Useless and irrelevant nonsense deleted]
> Now getting back to the issue at hand, if you have nothing relevant or
> useful to contribute to the purposes of these newsgroups, please refrain
> from further posting as I am confident my statement that 'you are wasting
> *everyone's* time', remains an undisputable fact.
Sorry, I didn't know that you're the news administrator.
If you feel like I'm wasting your time just don't reply - you could have
figured that possibly out yourself by using that wobbly thingy behind
your forehead. Of course, provided that there is one...
Again, you should not try to speak for others. You're not the one who
decides what's relevant or useful however hardly you would like it to be so.