User Ratings

★★★★★
★★★★
★★★
★★
8
0
0
0
0
ease 1 of 5 2 of 5 3 of 5 4 of 5 5 of 5 0 / 5
features 1 of 5 2 of 5 3 of 5 4 of 5 5 of 5 0 / 5
design 1 of 5 2 of 5 3 of 5 4 of 5 5 of 5 0 / 5
support 1 of 5 2 of 5 3 of 5 4 of 5 5 of 5 0 / 5
Write a Review

User Reviews

  • gabrielcarlson
    1 of 5 2 of 5 3 of 5 4 of 5 5 of 5

    Simple to use.

    Posted 01/23/2013
  • gavinchase
    1 of 5 2 of 5 3 of 5 4 of 5 5 of 5

    Reliable and runs smoothly

    Posted 12/21/2012
  • jacobchase
    1 of 5 2 of 5 3 of 5 4 of 5 5 of 5

    good project dbfpy

    Posted 10/31/2012
  • oid-4010420
    1 of 5 2 of 5 3 of 5 4 of 5 5 of 5

    bug: if you can't write dbf file with IOError, use "rb+" : self.stream = file(f, ("r+b", "rb+")[bool(readOnly)]) enhance: you can save str to num(int or float) cells Fields.py------------------------- class DbfNumericFieldDef(DbfFieldDef): ..... def encodeValue(self, value): """Return string containing encoded ``value``.""" if isinstance(value, str): #print str(value)[:self.length].ljust(self.length) return str(value)[:self.length].rjust(self.length) else: _rv = ("%*.*f" % (self.length, self.decimalCount, value)) if len(_rv) > self.length: _ppos = _rv.find(".") if 0 <= _ppos <= self.length: _rv = _rv[:self.length] else: raise ValueError("[%s] Numeric overflow: %s (field width: %i)" % (self.name, _rv, self.length)) return _rv .....

    Posted 10/11/2012
  • cammcdonald
    1 of 5 2 of 5 3 of 5 4 of 5 5 of 5

    good work

    Posted 09/21/2012
  • jwhitlock
    1 of 5 2 of 5 3 of 5 4 of 5 5 of 5

    Just what we needed to parse the DBF part of some shapefiles.

    Posted 09/20/2012
  • weq0ouyye
    1 of 5 2 of 5 3 of 5 4 of 5 5 of 5

    I found a bug ni you code.Like the following codes: from dbfpy import dbf db = dbf.Dbf("test.dbf", new=True) db.addField( ("BIRTHDATE", "D"), ) rec = db.newRecord() #year=1000 is before 1900; the datetime strftime() methods require year >= 1900 rec["BIRTHDATE"] = "10001010" rec.store() db.close() thanks

    Posted 06/13/2012
  • jno-
    1 of 5 2 of 5 3 of 5 4 of 5 5 of 5

    python 2.6 ok. has minor problems with Y2K+ dates. fix proposed (and can be applied on per-user basis) -- see project's tracker.

    Posted 09/13/2010