I have been looking for a few hours how to do this particular regular expression magic with little to no luck.
I have been playing around with parsing some of my own medical data (why not?) which unfortunately comes in the form of a very unstructured text document with no tags (XML or HTML).
Specifically, as a prototype, I only want to match what my LDL delta (cholesterol change) is as a percentage.
In the form it shows up in a few different ways:
LDL change since last visit: 10%
or
LDL change since last visit:
10%
or
LDL change since last visit:
10%
I have been trying to do this in JavaScript using the native RegExp engine for a few hours (more than I want to admit) with little success. I am by no means a RegExp expert but I have been looking at an expression like such:
(?<=LDL change since last visit)*(0*(100\.00|[0-9]?[0-9]\.[0-9]{0,2})%)
Which I know does not work in JS because the lack support for ?<=. I tested these in Ruby but even then they were not successful. Could anybody work me through some ways of doing this?
EDIT:
Since this particular metric shows up a few times in different areas, I would like the regex to match them all and have them be accessible in multiple groups. Say matching group 0 corresponds to the Lipid Profile section and matching group 1 corresponds to the Summary.
Lipid profile
...
LDL change since last visit:
10%
...
Summary of Important Metrics
...
LDL change since last visit: 10%
...
A lookbehind solution is complicated because most languages only support fixed or finite length lookbehind assertions. Therefore it's easier to use a capturing group instead. (Also, the * quantifier after the lookbehind that you used makes no sense).
And since you don't really need to validate the number (right?), I would simply do
regexp = /LDL change since last visit:\s*([\d.]+)%/
match = regexp.match(subject)
if match
match = match[1]
else
match = nil
end
If you expect multiple matches per string, use .scan():
subject.scan(/LDL change since last visit:\s*([\d.]+)%/)
Related
I'm trying to implement a username form validation in javascript where the username
can't start with numbers
can't have whitespaces
can't have any symbols but only One dot or One underscore or One dash
example of a valid username: the_user-one.123
example of invalid username: 1----- user
i've been trying to implement this for awhile but i couldn't figure out how to have only one of each allowed symbol:-
const usernameValidation = /(?=^[\w.-]+$)^\D/g
console.log(usernameValidation.test('1username')) //false
console.log(usernameValidation.test('username-One')) //true
How about using a negative lookahead at the start:
^(?!\d|.*?([_.-]).*\1)[\w.-]+$
This will check if the string
neither starts with digit
nor contains two [_.-] by use of capture and backreference
See this demo at regex101 (more explanation on the right side)
Preface: Due to my severe carelessness, I assumed the context was usage of the HTML pattern attribute instead of JavaScript input validation. I leave this answer here for posterity in case anyone really wants to do this with regex.
Although regex does have functionality to represent a pattern occuring consecutively within a certain number of times (via {<lower-bound>,<upper-bound>}), I'm not aware of regex having "elegant" functionality to enforce a set of patterns each occuring within a range of number of times but in any order and with other patterns possibly in between.
Some workarounds I can think of:
Make a regex that allows for one of each permutation of ordering of special characters (note: newlines added for readability):
^(?:
(?:(?:(?:[A-Za-z][A-Za-z0-9]*\.?)|\.)[A-Za-z0-9]*-?[A-Za-z0-9]*_?)|
(?:(?:(?:[A-Za-z][A-Za-z0-9]*\.?)|\.)[A-Za-z0-9]*_?[A-Za-z0-9]*-?)|
(?:(?:(?:[A-Za-z][A-Za-z0-9]*-?)|-)[A-Za-z0-9]*\.?[A-Za-z0-9]*_?)|
(?:(?:(?:[A-Za-z][A-Za-z0-9]*-?)|-)[A-Za-z0-9]*_?[A-Za-z0-9]*\.?)|
(?:(?:(?:[A-Za-z][A-Za-z0-9]*_?)|_)[A-Za-z0-9]*\.?[A-Za-z0-9]*-?)|
(?:(?:(?:[A-Za-z][A-Za-z0-9]*_?)|_)[A-Za-z0-9]*-?[A-Za-z0-9]*\.?)
)[A-Za-z0-9]*$
Note that the above regex can be simplified if you don't want usernames to start with special characters either.
Friendly reminder to also make sure you use the HTML attributes to enforce a minimum and maximum input character length where appropriate.
If you feel that regex isn't well suited to your use-case, know that you can do custom validation logic using javascript, which gives you much more control and can be much more readable compared to regex, but may require more lines of code to implement. Seeing the regex above, I would personally seriously consider the custom javascript route.
Note: I find https://regex101.com/ very helpful in learning, writing, and testing regex. Make sure to set the "flavour" to "JavaScript" in your case.
I have to admit that Bobble bubble's solution is the better fit. Here ia a comparison of the different cases:
console.log("Comparison between mine and Bobble Bubble's solution:\n\nusername mine,BobbleBubble");
["valid-usrId1","1nvalidUsrId","An0therVal1d-One","inva-lid.userId","anot-her.one","test.-case"].forEach(u=>console.log(u.padEnd(20," "),chck(u)));
function chck(s){
return [!!s.match(/^[a-zA-Z][a-zA-Z0-9._-]*$/) && ( s.match(/[._-]/g) || []).length<2, // mine
!!s.match(/^(?!\d|.*?([_.-]).*\1)[\w.-]+$/)].join(","); // Bobble bulle
}
The differences can be seen in the last three test cases.
I need to match all the expression (example: Laugh at Loud (LoL)) with 2 or more than 3 words. My regex works only for text with 3 character long expression. How do I make the regex very generic (without specifying the length as 3) so that expression are selected even if they are of any length.
The link shared provides an overview of it.
The last expression
light amplification by stimulated emission of radiation (LASER)
Green Skill Development Programme (GSDP) are not selected using the below regex
\b(\w)[\w']*[^a-zA-Z()]* (\w)[\w']*[^a-zA-Z()]* (\w)[\w']*[^a-zA-Z()]* \(\1\2\3\)
\b(?:\w[\w']* [^a-zA-Z]*){3} ?\([A-Z]{3}\)
https://regex101.com/r/QPMo5M/1
You can try the following:
/\b(\w)[-'\w]* (?:[-'\w]* ){1,}\(\1[A-Z]{1,}\)/gi
UPDATE
As #ikegami commented, this sloppy regex matches also things like Bring some drinks (beer) and Bring something to put on the grill (BBQ). I think these cases can be filtered by using proper JavaScript code after doing the regex matching. Maybe in case of Bring some drinks (beer), we can detect it by using the fact that (beer) has no uppercase letters. In case of Bring something to put on the grill (BBQ), we can detect it by using the fact that there's no matching initial letters for the second B and Q in Bring something to put on the grill.
UPDATE 2
When we match the following string by using the regex above:
We need to use technologies from Natural Language Processing (NLP).
It matches "need to use technologies from Natural Language Processing (NLP)", not "Natural Language Processing (NLP)". These problems should be tackled also.
UPDATE 3
The following regex matches acronyms whose length is from 2 to 5 and it doesn't have the issues mentioned above. And I think it can be quite easily extended to support longer length as you want:
/\b(\w)\S* (?:(?:by |of )?(\w)\S* (?:(?:by |of )?(\w)\S* (?:(?:by |of )?(\w)\S* (?:(?:by |of )?(\w)\S* )?)?)?) *\(\1\2\3\4\5\)/gi
\b(\w)[-'\w]* (?:[-`."?,~=#!/\\|+:;%°*#£&^€$¢¥§'\w]* ){2,}\(\1[A-Z]{2,}\)
I placed some special characters in between
Suppose that I have this regular expression: /abcd/
Suppose that I wanna check the user input against that regex and disallow entering invalid characters in the input. When user inputs "ab", it fails as an match for the regex, but I can't disallow entering "a" and then "b" as user can't enter all 4 characters at once (except for copy/paste). So what I need here is a partial match which checks if an incomplete string can be potentially a match for a regex.
Java has something for this purpose: .hitEnd() (described here http://glaforge.appspot.com/article/incomplete-string-regex-matching) python doesn't do it natively but has this package that does the job: https://pypi.python.org/pypi/regex.
I didn't find any solution for it in js. It's been asked years ago: Javascript RegEx partial match
and even before that: Check if string is a prefix of a Javascript RegExp
P.S. regex is custom, suppose that the user enters the regex herself and then tries to enter a text that matches that regex. The solution should be a general solution that works for regexes entered at runtime.
Looks like you're lucky, I've already implemented that stuff in JS (which works for most patterns - maybe that'll be enough for you). See my answer here. You'll also find a working demo there.
There's no need to duplicate the full code here, I'll just state the overall process:
Parse the input regex, and perform some replacements. There's no need for error handling as you can't have an invalid pattern in a RegExp object in JS.
Replace abc with (?:a|$)(?:b|$)(?:c|$)
Do the same for any "atoms". For instance, a character group [a-c] would become (?:[a-c]|$)
Keep anchors as-is
Keep negative lookaheads as-is
Had JavaScript have more advanced regex features, this transformation may not have been possible. But with its limited feature set, it can handle most input regexes. It will yield incorrect results on regex with backreferences though if your input string ends in the middle of a backreference match (like matching ^(\w+)\s+\1$ against hello hel).
As many have stated there is no standard library, fortunately I have written a Javascript implementation that does exactly what you require. With some minor limitation it works for regular expressions supported by Javascript.
see: incr-regex-package.
Further there is also a react component that uses this capability to provide some useful capabilities:
Check input as you type
Auto complete where possible
Make suggestions for possible input values
Demo of the capabilities Demo of use
I think that you have to have 2 regex one for typing /a?b?c?d?/ and one for testing at end while paste or leaving input /abcd/
This will test for valid phone number:
const input = document.getElementById('input')
let oldVal = ''
input.addEventListener('keyup', e => {
if (/^\d{0,3}-?\d{0,3}-?\d{0,3}$/.test(e.target.value)){
oldVal = e.target.value
} else {
e.target.value = oldVal
}
})
input.addEventListener('blur', e => {
console.log(/^\d{3}-?\d{3}-?\d{3}-?$/.test(e.target.value) ? 'valid' : 'not valid')
})
<input id="input">
And this is case for name surname
const input = document.getElementById('input')
let oldVal = ''
input.addEventListener('keyup', e => {
if (/^[A-Z]?[a-z]*\s*[A-Z]?[a-z]*$/.test(e.target.value)){
oldVal = e.target.value
} else {
e.target.value = oldVal
}
})
input.addEventListener('blur', e => {
console.log(/^[A-Z][a-z]+\s+[A-Z][a-z]+$/.test(e.target.value) ? 'valid' : 'not valid')
})
<input id="input">
This is the hard solution for those who think there's no solution at all: implement the python version (https://bitbucket.org/mrabarnett/mrab-regex/src/4600a157989dc1671e4415ebe57aac53cfda2d8a/regex_3/regex/_regex.c?at=default&fileviewer=file-view-default) in js. So it is possible. If someone has simpler answer he'll win the bounty.
Example using python module (regular expression with back reference):
$ pip install regex
$ python
>>> import regex
>>> regex.Regex(r'^(\w+)\s+\1$').fullmatch('abcd ab',partial=True)
<regex.Match object; span=(0, 7), match='abcd ab', partial=True>
You guys would probably find this page of interest:
(https://github.com/desertnet/pcre)
It was a valiant effort: make a WebAssembly implementation that would support PCRE. I'm still playing with it, but I suspect it's not practical. The WebAssembly binary weighs in at ~300K; and if your JS terminates unexpectedly, you can end up not destroying the module, and consequently leaking significant memory.
The bottom line is: this is clearly something the ECMAscript people should be formalizing, and browser manufacturers should be furnishing (kudos to the WebAssembly developer into possibly shaming them to get on the stick...)
I recently tried using the "pattern" attribute of an input[type='text'] element. I, like so many others, found it to be a letdown that it would not validate until a form was submitted. So a person would be wasting their time typing (or pasting...) numerous characters and jumping on to other fields, only to find out after a form submit that they had entered that field wrong. Ideally, I wanted it to validate field input immediately, as the user types each key (or at the time of a paste...)
The trick to doing a partial regex match (until the ECMAscript people and browser makers get it together with PCRE...) is to not only specify a pattern regex, but associated template value(s) as a data attribute. If your field input is shorter than the pattern (or input.maxLength...), it can use them as a suffix for validation purposes. YES -this will not be practical for regexes with complex case outcomes; but for fixed-position template pattern matching -which is USUALLY what is needed- it's fine (if you happen to need something more complex, you can build on the methods shown in my code...)
The example is for a bitcoin address [ Do I have your attention now? -OK, not the people who don't believe in digital currency tech... ] The key JS function that gets this done is validatePattern. The input element in the HTML markup would be specified like this:
<input id="forward_address"
name="forward_address"
type="text"
maxlength="90"
pattern="^(bc(0([ac-hj-np-z02-9]{39}|[ac-hj-np-z02-9]{59})|1[ac-hj-np-z02-9]{8,87})|[13][a-km-zA-HJ-NP-Z1-9]{25,34})$"
data-entry-templates="['bc099999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999','bc1999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999','19999999999999999999999999999999999']"
onkeydown="return validatePattern(event)"
onpaste="return validatePattern(event)"
required
/>
[Credit goes to this post: "RegEx to match Bitcoin addresses?
" Note to old-school bitcoin zealots who will decry the use of a zero in the regex here -it's just an example for accomplishing PRELIMINARY validation; the server accepting the address passed off by the browser can do an RPC call after a form post, to validate it much more rigorously. Adjust your regex to suit.]
The exact choice of characters in the data-entry-template was a bit arbitrary; but they had to be ones such that if the input being typed or pasted by the user is still incomplete in length, it will use them as an optimistic stand-in and the input so far will still be considered valid. In the example there, for the last of the data-entry-templates ('19999999999999999999999999999999999'), that was a "1" followed by 39 nines (seeing as how the regex spec "{25,39}" dictates that a maximum of 39 digits in the second character span/group...) Because there were two forms to expect -the "bc" prefix and the older "1"/"3" prefix- I furnished a few stand-in templates for the validator to try (if it passes just one of them, it validates...) In each template case, I furnished the longest possible pattern, so as to insure the most permissive possibility in terms of length.
If you were generating this markup on a dynamic web content server, an example with template variables (a la django...) would be:
<input id="forward_address"
name="forward_address"
type="text"
maxlength="{{MAX_BTC_ADDRESS_LENGTH}}"
pattern="{{BTC_ADDRESS_REGEX}}" {# base58... #}
data-entry-templates="{{BTC_ADDRESS_TEMPLATES}}" {# base58... #}
onkeydown="return validatePattern(event)"
onpaste="return validatePattern(event)"
required
/>
[Keep in mind: I went to the deeper end of the pool here. You could just as well use this for simpler patterns of validation.]
And if you prefer to not use event attributes, but to transparently hook the function to the element's events at document load -knock yourself out.
You will note that we need to specify validatePattern on three events:
The keydown, to intercept delete and backspace keys.
The paste (the clipboard is pasted into the field's value, and if it works, it accepts it as valid; if not, the paste does not transpire...)
Of course, I also took into account when text is partially selected in the field, dictating that a key entry or pasted text will replace the selected text.
And here's a link to the [dependency-free] code that does the magic:
https://gitlab.com/osfda/validatepattern.js
(If it happens to generate interest, I'll integrate constructive and practical suggestions and give it a better readme...)
PS: The incremental-regex package posted above by Lucas Trzesniewski:
Appears not to have been updated? (I saw signs that it was undergoing modification??)
Is not browserified (tried doing that to it, to kick the tires on it -it was a module mess; welcome anyone else here to post a browserified version for testing. If it works, I'll integrate it with my input validation hooks and offer it as an alternative solution...) If you succeed in getting it browserfied, maybe sharing the exact steps that were needed would also edify everyone on this post. I tried using the esm package to fix version incompatibilities faced by browserify, but it was no go...
I strongly suspect (although I'm not 100% sure) that general case of this problem has no solution the same way as famous Turing's "Haltin problem" (see Undecidable problem). And even if there is a solution, it most probably will be not what users actually want and thus depending on your strictness will result in a bad-to-horrible UX.
Example:
Assume "target RegEx" is [a,b]*c[a,b]* also assume that you produced a reasonable at first glance "test RegEx" [a,b]*c?[a,b]* (obviously two c in the string is invalid, yeah?) and assume that the current user input is aabcbb but there is a typo because what the user actually wanted is aacbbb. There are many possible ways to fix this typo:
remove c and add it before first b - will work OK
remove first b and add after c - will work OK
add c before first b and then remove the old one - Oops, we prohibit this input as invalid and the user will go crazy because no normal human can understand such a logic.
Note also that your hitEnd will have the same problem here unless you prohibit user to enter characters in the middle of the input box that will be another way to make a horrible UI.
In the real life there would be many much more complicated examples that any of your smart heuristics will not be able to account for properly and thus will upset users.
So what to do? I think the only thing you can do and still get reasonable UX is the simplest thing you can do i.e. just analyze your "target RegEx" for set of allowed characters and make your "test RegEx" [set of allowed chars]*. And yes, if the "target RegEx" contains . wildcart, you will not be able to do any reasonable filtering at all.
am trying to retrieve data that exists between two different delimiters,
where this pattern might occur multiple times this is my regular expression so far
/\#\((\w*)\)\{\{\{([^]*)\}\}\};/
this works for a single match, and occationaly it will also match the entire set correctly if there is other data between the sets of delimiters, but normally this is not the case
but in most situations, it will match
for example
#(name){{{
contains a bunch of arbitrary text to save for later
when #name occurs again, it will be replaced with this.
}}};
#name
#(broken){{{
this is a broken match
}}};
will normaly capture the pattern
contains a bunch of arbitrary text to save for later
when #name occurs again, it will be replaced with this.
}}};
#name
#(broken){{{
this is a broken match
I know that some where I need a non greedy evaluation, but I am not exactly sure where.
I also have the intent of eventualy needing to take this pattern farther, and nest, resulting in structures such as the following:
#(name){{{
#(anotherName){{{
contains a bunch of arbitrary text to save for later
when #name occurs again, it will be replaced with this.
}}}
#anotherName;
}}};
#name
#(broken){{{
this is a broken match
}}};
though for this I am almost certain I cannot use regular expressions alone, and recursion is beyond the scope of my question, but I would like to be proven wrong though.
edit:
I had tried the given patterns previously, to no avail, but the accepted answer and the example provided by it proved to me that it could not be a regular expression problem, but rather an issue with the program it's self.
I was looping replacements, because it was possible that one replacement might add a new instance of the string to be replaced, and would require additional expansion. I was setting the test value to true, which would make the loop start over again, and never setting it back to false.
Always a something small.
You can make it non-greedy with adding ? after * and use modifier g to make it global :
/\#\((\w*)\)\{\{\{([^]*?)\}\}\};/g
see the DEMO.
As you can see it matches the following part separately :
#(name){{{
#(anotherName){{{
contains a bunch of arbitrary text to save for later
when #name occurs again, it will be replaced with this.
}}}
#anotherName;
}}};
and
#(broken){{{
this is a broken match
}}};
And it doesn't match nested patters.Its because of that the most of regex engines doesn't support nested matching because in that case you'll fall into Context Free Grammers and its opposed of regular languages
So as a proper way for such tasks you can use a appropriate Parser.
Just add ? after each * to use non-greedy matches:
/\#\((\w*?)\)\{\{\{([^]*?)\}\}\};/
I have the following regex for phone number validation
function validatePhonenumber(phoneNum) {
var regex = /^[1-9]{3}[-\s\.]{0,1}[0-9]{3}[-\s\.]{0,1}[0-9]{4}$/;
return regex.test(phoneNum);
}
However, I would liek to make sure it doesn;t pass for different separators such as in
111-222.3333
Any ideas how to make sure the separators are the same always?
Just make sure beforehand that there is at most one kind of separator, then pass the string through the regex as you were doing.
function validatePhonenumber(phoneNum) {
var separators = extractSeparators(phoneNum);
if(separators.length > 1) return false;
var regex = /^[1-9]{3}[-\s\.]{0,1}[0-9]{3}[-\s\.]{0,1}[0-9]{3}$/;
return regex.test(phoneNum);
}
function extractSeparators(str){
// Return an array with all the distinct chars
// that are present in the passed string
// and are not numeric (0-9)
}
You can use the following regex instead:
\d{3}([-\s\.])?\d{3}\1?\d{4}
Here is a working example:
http://regex101.com/r/nN9nT7/1
As result it will match the following result:
111-222-3333 --> ok
111.222.3333 --> ok
111 222 3333 --> ok
111-222.3333
111.222-3333
111-222 3333
111 222-3333
EDIT: after Alan Moore's suggestion:
Also matches 111-2223333. That's because you made the \1 optional,
which isn't necessary. One of JavaScript's stranger quirks is that a
backreference to a group that did not participate in the match,
succeeds anyway. So if there's no first separator, ([-\s.])? succeeds
because the ? made it optional, and \1 succeeds because it's
JavaScript. But I would have used ([-\s.]?) to capture the first
separator (which might be nothing), and \1 to match the same thing
again. This works in any flavor, including JavaScript.
We can improve the regex to:
^\d{3}([-\s\.]?)\d{3}\1\d{4}$
You'll need at least two passes to keep this maintainable and extensible.
JS' RegEx doesn't allow for creating variables for use later in the RegEx, if you want to support older browsers.
If you are only supporting modern browsers, Fede's answer is just fine...
As such, with ghetto-support, you aren't going to be able to reliably check that one separator is the same value every time, without writing a really, really, really, stupidly-long RegEx, using | to basically write out the RegEx 3 times.
A better way might be to grab all of the separators, and use a reduction or a filter to check that they all have the same value.
var userEnteredNumber = "999.231 3055";
var validNumber = numRegEx.test(userEnteredNumber);
var separators = userEnteredNumber.replace(/\d+/g, "").split("");
var firstSeparator = separators[0];
var uniformSeparators = separators.every(function (separator) { return separator === firstSeparator; });
if (!uniformSeparators) { /* also not valid */ }
You could make that a little neater, using closures and some applied functions, but that's the idea.
Alternatively, here's the big, ugly RegEx that would allow you to test exactly what the user entered.
var separatorTest = /^([0-9]{3}\.[0-9]{3}\.[0-9]{3,4})|([0-9]{3}-[0-9]{3}-[0-9]{3,4})|([0-9]{3} [0-9]{3} [0-9]{3,4})|([0-9]{9,10})$/;
Notice I had to include the exact same number-test three times, wrap each one in parens (to be treated as a single group), and then separate each group with an | to check each group, like an if, else if, else... ...and then plug in a separate special case for having no separator at all...
...not pretty.
I'm also not using \d, just because it's easy to forget that - and . are both accepted "digit"s, when trying to maintain one of these abominations.
Now, a word or two of warning:
People are liable to enter all kinds of crap; if this is for a commercial site, it's likely better to just strip separators entirely and validate the number is the right size, and conforms to some specifics (eg: doesn't start with /^555555/).
If not given any instruction about number format, people will happily use either no separator or a formal number, like (555) 555-5555 (or +1 (555) 555-5555 for the really pedantic), which is obviously going to fail hard, in this system (see point #1).
Be prepared to trim what you get, before validating.
Depending on your country/region/etc laws about data-security and consumer-vs-transaction record-keeping (again, may or may not be more important in a commercial setting), it's likely better to store both a "user-given" ugly number, and a system-usable number, which you either clean on the back-end, or submit along with the user-entered text.
From a user-interaction perspective, either forcing the number to conform, explicitly (placeholders showing them xxx-xxx-xxxx right above the input, in bold), or accepting any text, and prepping it yourself, is going to be 1000x better than accepting certain forms, but not bothering to tell the user up-front, and instead telling them what they did was wrong, after they try.
It's not cool for relationships; it's equally not cool, here.
You've got 9-digit and 10-digit numbers, so if you're trying for an international solution, be prepared to deal with all international separators (, \.\-\(\)\+) etc... again, why stripping is more useful, because THAT RegEx would be insane.