Develop Reference

Ambiguity in regex in javascript

var a = 'a\na'
console.log(a.match(/.*/g)) // ['a', '', 'a', '']
Why are there two empty strings in the result?
Let's say if there are empty strings, why isn't there one at beginning and at the end of each line as well, hence 4 empty strings?
I am not looking for how to select 'a's but just want to understand the presence of the empty strings.

The best explanation I can offer for the following:
'ab\na'.match(/.*/g)
["ab", "", "a", ""]
Is that JavaScript's match function uses dot not in DOT ALL mode, meaning that dot does not match across newlines. When the .* pattern is applied to ab\na, it first matches ab, then stops at the newline. The newline generates an empty match. Then, a is matched, and then for some reason the end of the string matches another empty match.
If you just want to extract the non whitespace content from each line, then you may try the following:
print('ab\na'.match(/.+/g))
ab,a

Let's say if there are empty strings, why isn't there one at beginning
and at the end...
.* applies greediness. It swallows a complete line asap. By a line I mean everything before a line break. When it encounters end of a line, it matches again due to star quantifier.
If you want 4 you may add ? to star quantifier and make it lazy .*? but yet this regex has different result in different flavors because of the way they handle zero-length matches.
You can try .*? with both PCRE and JS engines in regex101 and see the differences.
Question:
You may ask why does engine try to find a match at the end of line while whole thing is already matched?
Answer:
It's for the reason that we have a definition for end of lines and end of strings. So not whole thing is matched. There is a left position that has a chance to be matched and we have it with star quantifier.
This left position is end of line here which is a true match for $ when m flag is on. A . doesn't match this position but a .* or .*? match because they would be a pattern for zero-length positions too as any X-STAR patterns like \d*, \D*, a* or b?

Star operator * means there can be any number of ocurrences (even 0 ocurrences). With the expression used, an empty string can be a match. Not sure what are you looking for, but maybe a + operator (1 or more ocurrences) will be better?
Want to add some more info, regex use a greedy algorithm by default (in some languages you can override this behaviour), so it will pick as much of the text as it can. In this case, it will pick the a, because it can be processed with the regex, so the "\na" is still there. "\n" does not match the ".", so the only available option is the empty string. Then, we will process the next line, and again, we can match a "a". After this, only the empty string matches the regex.

* Matches the preceding expression 0 or more times.
. matches any single character except the newline character.
That is what official doc says about . and *. So i guess the array you received is something like this:
[ the first "any character" of the first line, following "nothing", the first "any character" of the second line, following "nothing"]
And the new-line character is just ignored

JS Regex: Remove anything (ONLY) after a word

I want to remove all of the symbols (The symbol depends on what I select at the time) after each word, without knowing what the word could be. But leave them in before each word.
A couple of examples:
!!hello! my! !!name!!! is !!bob!! should return...
!!hello my !!name is !!bob ; for !
and
$remove$ the$ targetted$# $$symbol$$# only $after$ a $word$ should return...
$remove the targetted# $$symbol# only $after a $word ; for $

You need to use capture groups and replace:
"!!hello! my! !!name!!! is !!bob!!".replace(/([a-zA-Z]+)(!+)/g, '$1');
Which works for your test string. To work for any generic character or group of characters:
var stripTrailing = trail => {
let regex = new RegExp(`([a-zA-Z0-9]+)(${trail}+)`, 'g');
return str => str.replace(regex, '$1');
};
Note that this fails on any characters that have meaning in a regular expression: []{}+*^$. etc. Escaping those programmatically is left as an exercise for the reader.
UPDATE
Per your comment I thought an explanation might help you, so:
First, there's no way in this case to replace only part of a match, you have to replace the entire match. So we need to find a pattern that matches, split it into the part we want to keep and the part we don't, and replace the whole match with the part of it we want to keep. So let's break up my regex above into multiple lines to see what's going on:
First we want to match any number of sequential alphanumeric characters, that would be the 'word' to strip the trailing symbol from:
( // denotes capturing group for the 'word'
[ // [] means 'match any character listed inside brackets'
a-z // list of alpha character a-z
A-Z // same as above but capitalized
0-9 // list of digits 0 to 9
]+ // plus means one or more times
)
The capturing group means we want to have access to just that part of the match.
Then we have another group
(
! // I used ES6's string interpolation to insert the arg here
+ // match that exclamation (or whatever) one or more times
)
Then we add the g flag so the replace will happen for every match in the target string, without the flag it returns after the first match. JavaScript provides a convenient shorthand for accessing the capturing groups in the form of automatically interpolated symbols, the '$1' above means 'insert contents of the first capture group here in this string'.
So, in the above, if you replaced '$1' with '$1$2' you'd see the same string you started with, if you did 'foo$2' you'd see foo in place of every word trailed by one or more !, etc.

Regexp: excluding a word but including non-standard punctuation

I want to find strings that contain words in a particular order, allowing non-standard characters in between the words but excluding a particular word or symbol.
I'm using javascript's replace function to find all instances and put into an array.
So, I want select...from, with anything except 'from' in between the words. Or I can separate select...from from select...from (, as long as I exclude nesting. I think the answer is the same for both, i.e. how do I write: find x and not y within the same regexp?
From the internet, I feel this should work: /\bselect\b^(?!from).*\bfrom\b/gi but this finds no matches.
This works to find all select...from: /\bselect\b[0-9a-zA-Z#\(\)\[\]\s\.\*,%_+-]*?\bfrom\b/gi but modifying it to exclude the parenthesis "(" at the end prevents any matches: /\bselect\b[0-9a-zA-Z#\(\)\[\]\s\.\*,%_+-]*?\bfrom\b\s*^\(/gi
Can anyone tell me how to exclude words and symbols within this regexp?
Many thanks
Emma
Edit: partial string input:
left outer join [stage].[db].[table14] o on p.Project_id = o.project_id
left outer join
(
select
different_id
,sum(costs) - ( sum(brushes) + sum(carpets) + sum(fabric) + sum(other) + sum(chairs)+ sum(apples) ) as overallNumber
from
(
select ace from [stage].db.[table18] J
Javascript:
sequel = stringInputAsAbove;
var tst = sequel.replace(/\bselect\b[\s\S]*?\bfrom\b/gi, function(a,b) { console.log('match: '+a); selects.push(b); return a; });
console.log(selects);
Console.log(selects) should print an array of numbers, where each number is the starting character of a select...from. This works for the second regexp I gave in my info, printing: [95, 251]. Your \s\S variation does the same, #stribizhev.
The first example ^(?!from).* should do likewise but returns [].
The third example \s*^\( should return 251 only but returns []. However I have just noticed that the positive expression \s*\( does give 95, so some progress! It's the negatives I'm getting wrong.

Your \bselect\b^(?!from).*\bfrom\b regex doesn't work as expected because:
^ means here beginning of a line, not negation of next part, so
the \bselect\b^ means, select word followed by beginning of a
line. After removal of ^ regex start to match something
(DEMO) but it is still invalid.
in multiline text .* without modification will not match new line,
so regex will match only select...from in single lines, but if you
change it for (.|\n)* (as a simple example) it will match
multiline, but still invalid
the * is greede quantifire, so it will match as much a possible,
but if you use reluctant quantifire *?, regex will match to first
occurance of from word, and int will start to return relativly
correct result.
\bselect\b(?!from) means match separate select word which is not
directly followed by separate from word, so it would be
selectfrom somehow composed of separate words (because
select\bfrom) so (?!from) doesn't work and it is redundant
In effect you will get regex very similar to what Stribizhev gave you: \bselect\b(.|\n)*?\bfrom\b
In third expression you meke same mistake: \bselect\b[0-9a-zA-Z#\(\)\[\]\s\.\*,%_+-]*?\bfrom\b\s*^\( using ^ as (I assume) a negation, not beginning of a line. Remove ^ and you will again get relativly valid result (match from select through from to closing parathesis ) ).
Your second regex works similar to \bselect\b(.|\n)*?\bfrom\b or \bselect\b[\s\S]*?\bfrom\b.
I wrote "relativly valid result", as I also think, that parsing SQL with regex could be very camplicated, so I am not sure if it will work in every case.
You can also try to use positive lookahead to match just position in text, like:
(?=\bselect\b(?:.|\n)*?\bfrom\b)
DEMO - the () was added to regex just to return beginning index of match in groups, so it would be easier to check it validity
Negation in regex
We use ^ as negation in character class, for example [^a-z] means match anything but not letter, so it will match number, symbol, whitespace, etc, but not letter from range a to z (Look here). But this negation is on a level of single character. I you use [^from] it will prevent regex from matching characters f,r,o and m (demo). Also the [^from]{4} will avoid matching from but also form, morf, etc.
To exlude the whole word from matching by regex, you need to use negative look ahead, like (?!from), which will fail to match, if there will be chosen word from fallowing given position. To avoid matching whole line containing from you could use ^(?!.*from.*).+$ (demo).
However in your case, you don't need to use this construction, because if you replace greedy quantifire .*\bfrom with .*?\bfrom it will match to first occurance of this word. Whats more it would couse problems. Take a look on this regex, it will not match anything because (?![\s\S]*from[\s\S]*) is not restricted by anything, so it will match only if there is no from after select, but we want to match also from! in effect this regex try to match and exclude from at once, and fail. so the (?!.*word.*) construction works much better to exclude matching line with given word.
So what to do if we don't what to match a word in a fragment of a match? I think select\b([^f]|f(?!rom))*?\bfrom\b is a good solution. With ([^f]|f(?!rom))*? it will match everything between select and from, but will not exclude from.
But if you would like to match only select...from not followed by ( then it is good idea to use (?!\() like. But in your regex (multiline, use of (.|\n)*? or [\s\S]*? it will cause to match up to next select...from part, because reluctant quantifire will chenge a plece where it need to match to make whole regex . In my opinion, good solution would be to use again:
select\b([^f]|f(?!rom))*?\bfrom\b(?!\s*?\()
which will not overlap additional select..from and will not match if there is \( after select...from - check it here

Regular expression to check contains only

EDIT: Thank you all for your inputs. What ever you answered was right.But I thought I didnt explain it clear enough.
I want to check the input value while typing itself.If user is entering any other character that is not in the list the entered character should be rolled back.
(I am not concerning to check once the entire input is entered).
I want to validate a date input field which should contain only characters 0-9[digits], -(hyphen) , .(dot), and /(forward slash).Date may be like 22/02/1999 or 22.02.1999 or 22-02-1999.No validation need to be done on either occurrence or position. A plain validation is enough to check whether it has any other character than the above listed chars.
[I am not good at regular expressions.]
Here is what I thought should work but not.
var reg = new RegExp('[0-9]./-');
Here is jsfiddle.

Your expression only tests whether anywhere in the string, a digit is followed by any character (. is a meta character) and /-. For example, 5x/- or 42%/-foobar would match.
Instead, you want to put all the characters into the character class and test whether every single character in the string is one of them:
var reg = /^[0-9.\/-]+$/
^ matches the start of the string
[...] matches if the character is contained in the group (i.e. any digit, ., / or -).
The / has to be escaped because it also denotes the end of a regex literal.
- between two characters describes a range of characters (between them, e.g. 0-9 or a-z). If - is at the beginning or end it has no special meaning though and is literally interpreted as hyphen.
+ is a quantifier and means "one or more if the preceding pattern". This allows us (together with the anchors) to test whether every character of the string is in the character class.
$ matches the end of the string
Alternatively, you can check whether there is any character that is not one of the allowed ones:
var reg = /[^0-9.\/-]/;
The ^ at the beginning of the character class negates it. Here we don't have to test every character of the string, because the existence of only character is different already invalidates the string.
You can use it like so:
if (reg.test(str)) { // !reg.test(str) for the first expression
// str contains an invalid character
}

Try this:
([0-9]{2}[/\-.]){2}[0-9]{4}

If you are not concerned about the validity of the date, you can easily use the regex:
^[0-9]{1,2}[./-][0-9]{1,2}[./-][0-9]{4}$
The character class [./-] allows any one of the characters within the square brackets and the quantifiers allow for either 1 or 2 digit months and dates, while only 4 digit years.
You can also group the first few groups like so:
^([0-9]{1,2}[./-]){2}[0-9]{4}$
Updated your fiddle with the first regex.

Javascript lookahead regular expression

I'm trying to write a regular expression to parse the following string out into three distinct parts. This is for a highlighting engine I'm writing:
"\nOn and available after solution."
I have a regular expression that's dynamically created for any word a user might input. In the above example, the word is "on".
The regular expression expects a word with any amount of white space ([\s]*) followed by the search word (with no -\w following it, eg: on-time, on-wards should not be a valid result. To complicate this, there can be a -,$,< or > symbol following the example, so on-, on> or on$ are valid. This is why there is a negative lookahead after the search word in my regular expression below.
There's a complicated reason for this, but it's not relevant to the question. The last part should be the rest of the sentence. In this example, " and available after solution."
So,
p1 = "\n"
p2 = "On"
p3 = " and available after solution"
I currently have the following regular expression.
test = new RegExp('([\\s]*)(on(?!\\-\\w))([$\\-><]*?\\s(?=[.]*))',"gi")
The first part of this regular expression ([\\s]*)(on(?!\\-\\w))[$\\-><]*? works as expected. The last part does not.
In the last part, what I'm trying to do is force the regular expression engine to match whitespace before matching additional characters. If it can not match a space, then the regular expression should end. However, when I run this regular expression, I get the following results
str1 = "\nOn ly available after solution."
test.exec(str1)
["\n On ", "\n ", "On"]
So it would appear to me that the last positive look ahead is not working. Thanks for any suggestions, and if anyone needs some clarification, let me know.
EDIT:
It would appear that my regular expression was not matching because I didn't realize the following caveat:
You can use any regular expression inside the lookahead. (Note that this is not the case with lookbehind. I will explain why below.) Any valid regular expression can be used inside the lookahead. If it contains capturing parentheses, the backreferences will be saved. Note that the lookahead itself does not create a backreference. So it is not included in the count towards numbering the backreferences. If you want to store the match of the regex inside a backreference, you have to put capturing parentheses around the regex inside the lookahead, like this: (?=(regex)). The other way around will not work, because the lookahead will already have discarded the regex match by the time the backreference is to be saved.

The dot in the character class [.] means a literal dot. Change it to just . if you wish to match any character.
The lookahead (?=.*) will always match and is completely pointless. Change it to (.*) if you just want to capture that part of the string.

I think the problem is your positive lookahead on(?!\-\w) is trying to match any on that is not followed by - then \w. I think what you want instead is on(?!\-|\w), which matches on that is not followed by - OR \w