Im trying to parse out a JavaScript object literal from a script block on a page. Here's the example I have of the data:
//End Update for CASE00370003 2011/08/22
stores[0] = {
'fullName' : 'Bobs Commons',
'street1' : '23 Chestnut Commons Dr'
};
//Some more comments
stores[1] = {
'fullName' : 'Gove Wood',
'street1' : '65 Lake Rd'
};
So far I've come up with:
/^(stores\[)(\d){1,2}(])(.|\n)*};$/m
However, the string ends with "};" will grab the last occurrence of the }; on stores[1], so each won't be broken individually. Thanks!
Seems that what you need is 'non-greedy' matches (*? instead of *) - it captures the shortest match rather than the longest.
So the regex will look like:
/^(stores\[)(\d){1,2}(])(.|\n)*?};$/m
After suggesting that I still have to note that you in general should not do that with regular expressions at all :). Your approach will break if the object string properties contain '}' (e.g., 'fullName' : 'Bobs Comm}ons').
Additionally to the #amakhrov answer above:
you may perform consecutive searches of closing curly brace unless JSON.parse(literal_string); executes without exceptions
UPD: missed the important fact, that for that it needs to be a valid JSON
PREPARE TO HAVE YOUR MIND BLOWN.
J.S.O.N. (the thing several answers have mentioned)
--->
J ava-S cript O bject N otation.
Cool, right? Since JS' declaration syntax is so useful, it became a neutral data format. That's the format your web request is returning, and JavaScript even has special libraries for parsing it. I think you may have just been unclear on that part.
Related
I need to write a regex that will tell me if any back-end framework that I'm working with is throwing an error and then store those errors in an array for retrieval if necessary.
The issue is, they use different tags for errors. Tags are as follows:
{{error}}, <<error>>, [[error]], and <{:error:}>
Usually, but not always, a set of braces will come after. Inside the braces will be a string; either an explanation of the error, or a JSON string containing more info about the error, like this:
<<error>> { Something has gone terribly wrong. }
<<error>> {
{"some":"json"}
}
<{:error:}> { What went wrong? }
As of now, it's undergoing a specific check for each tag, which is rather inefficient, like this:
if ( string.indexOf('<<error>>') >= 0 )
// Remove << and >>
if ( string.indexOf('[[error]]') >= 0 )
// Remove [[ and ]]
// So forth...
Then, I am left with a string like this:
error { Some description. }
or
error {
{"some":"json"}
}
Which I need a regex to extract what's between the brackets. This was the regex I wrote, but it falls short on numerous things:
string.match('/error\s?\{([^\}]+)\}/gi');
As I said, this procedure is very inefficient and has issues.
First, it doesn't allow the braces {} after error to be optional. They should be optional.
Second, it does not allow JSON as the charset [^}] is not matched when JSON presents it's closing}. So I need some way of matching all characters in a set until the opening bracket of error is closed. Is this possible?
Given the comments on my first answer, I'd use this regular expression as a replace to convert the data into single-line json, the regex also removes comments. It removes newlines that do not start with a properly labeled error. Multiline must be on.
(?:\/[\s\S*]*?\*\/|\/\/.*$|\s*^\s*(?!<<|{{|\[\[|<{:))) (demo)
or (?:\s*^\s*(?!<<|{{|\[\[|<{:)) if there are never comments to remove
And then this to extract the error information, on the reformatted string, this regex to match.
({{error}}|<<error>>|\[\[error\]\]|<{:error:}>)[ \t]*(?:(.*)}\s*$)? demo
I'll leave the other answer intact as I think it basically explains the problems that a person can encounter doing this.
Good question. Explained your problem, showed what you've tried, gave enough examples of input.
Regex, especially Javascript's limited implementation, is not ideal for parsing many languages and data objects. It can be difficult in this scenario to capture say 5. .* wants to go to 6 and .*? wants to go to 4.
{
{
{
} // 5
} // 5
} // 6
However, if your code is really indented like your examples (it may not be, that could be you making it readable), you should be able to use something like this ({{error}}|<<error>>|\[\[error\]\]|<{:error:}>)\s*(\s*{(.*?(?=$)|[\s\S]*?^)})?, (demo)
What this is doing is
capturing from { to } on the same line and if it can't, it proceeds to step 2 (alternation.
everything between { and } as long as } starts the line.
If the } is always prefixed by a certain number of spaces, you can prefix the marked } with that number of spaces in the regex.
({{error}}|<<error>>|\[\[error\]\]|<{:error:}>)\s*(\s*{(.*?(?=$)|[\s\S]*?^)})?`
^
If the } is always prefixed by the same number of spaces as the opening error marker, you can do this
([t ]*)({{error}}|<<error>>|\[\[error\]\]|<{:error:}>)(?:[ \t]*({(.*?(?=}$)|[\s\S]*?^\1)})?) (demo)
For this example, it's important to look at the full sample indent text. I demonstrate how it can go wrong.
If these won't work, you'll need a more code-oriented solution, but at the very least you can detect presence of errors with this
({{error}}|<<error>>|\[\[error\]\]|<{:error:}>)
. Chris85's simpler version is bad form, it could match <<error]] and any other combination, something he's probably aware of.
I ran into the below monster of a regex in the wild today. The regex is meant to validate a url.
function superUrlValidation(url) {
return new RegExp(/^/.source + "((.+):\/\/)?" + /(((([a-z]|\d|-|\.|_|~|[\u00A0-\uD7FF\uF900-\uFDCF\uFDF0-\uFFEF])|(%[\da-f]{2})|[!\$&'\(\)\*\+,;=]|:)*#)?(((\d|[1-9]\d|1\d\d|2[0-4]\d|25[0-5])\.(\d|[1-9]\d|1\d\d|2[0-4]\d|25[0-5])\.(\d|[1-9]\d|1\d\d|2[0-4]\d|25[0-5])\.(\d|[1-9]\d|1\d\d|2[0-4]\d|25[0-5]))|((([a-z]|\d|[\u00A0-\uD7FF\uF900-\uFDCF\uFDF0-\uFFEF])|(([a-z]|\d|[\u00A0-\uD7FF\uF900-\uFDCF\uFDF0-\uFFEF])([a-z]|\d|-|\.|_|~|[\u00A0-\uD7FF\uF900-\uFDCF\uFDF0-\uFFEF])*([a-z]|\d|[\u00A0-\uD7FF\uF900-\uFDCF\uFDF0-\uFFEF])))\.)+(([a-z]|[\u00A0-\uD7FF\uF900-\uFDCF\uFDF0-\uFFEF])|(([a-z]|[\u00A0-\uD7FF\uF900-\uFDCF\uFDF0-\uFFEF])([a-z]|\d|-|\.|_|~|[\u00A0-\uD7FF\uF900-\uFDCF\uFDF0-\uFFEF])*([a-z]|[\u00A0-\uD7FF\uF900-\uFDCF\uFDF0-\uFFEF])))\.?)(:\d*)?)(\/((([a-z]|\d|-|\.|_|~|[\u00A0-\uD7FF\uF900-\uFDCF\uFDF0-\uFFEF])|(%[\da-f]{2})|[!\$&'\(\)\*\+,;=]|:|#)+(\/(([a-z]|\d|-|\.|_|~|[\u00A0-\uD7FF\uF900-\uFDCF\uFDF0-\uFFEF])|(%[\da-f]{2})|[!\$&'\(\)\*\+,;=]|:|#)*)*)?)?(\?((([a-z]|\d|-|\.|_|~|[\u00A0-\uD7FF\uF900-\uFDCF\uFDF0-\uFFEF])|(%[\da-f]{2})|[!\$&'\(\)\*\+,;=]|:|#)|[\uE000-\uF8FF]|\/|\?)*)?(\#((([a-z]|\d|-|\.|_|~|[\u00A0-\uD7FF\uF900-\uFDCF\uFDF0-\uFFEF])|(%[\da-f]{2})|[!\$&'\(\)\*\+,;=]|:|#)|\/|\?)*)?$/.source, "i")
.test(url);
}
I've never seen .source used in a regex like this so I looked it up.
The MDN docs for RegExp.prototype.source states:
The source property returns a String containing the source text of the regexp object, and it doesn't contain the two forward slashes on both sides and any flags.
... and gives this example:
var regex = /fooBar/ig;
console.log(regex.source); // "fooBar", doesn't contain /.../ and "ig".
I understand the MDN example (you're getting the source text of the regex object after it is created, makes sense), but I dont understand how this is being used in the superUrlValidation regex above.
How is the source being used before the regex object is completed and what does this accomplish? I cant find any documentation showing .source being used in this way.
Note that .source is used twice in the regex, at the beginning and the end
Use of .source everywhere in your regex seems totally unnecessary, may be just a trick to avoid double escaping. In fact even use of new RegExp is not needed and you can get away with just the regex literal as this:
var re = /^((.+):\/\/)?(((([a-z]|\d|-|\.|_|~|[\u00A0-\uD7FF\uF900-\uFDCF\uFDF0-\uFFEF])|(%[\da-f]{2})|[!\$&'\(\)\*\+,;=]|:)*#)?(((\d|[1-9]\d|1\d\d|2[0-4]\d|25[0-5])\.(\d|[1-9]\d|1\d\d|2[0-4]\d|25[0-5])\.(\d|[1-9]\d|1\d\d|2[0-4]\d|25[0-5])\.(\d|[1-9]\d|1\d\d|2[0-4]\d|25[0-5]))|((([a-z]|\d|[\u00A0-\uD7FF\uF900-\uFDCF\uFDF0-\uFFEF])|(([a-z]|\d|[\u00A0-\uD7FF\uF900-\uFDCF\uFDF0-\uFFEF])([a-z]|\d|-|\.|_|~|[\u00A0-\uD7FF\uF900-\uFDCF\uFDF0-\uFFEF])*([a-z]|\d|[\u00A0-\uD7FF\uF900-\uFDCF\uFDF0-\uFFEF])))\.)+(([a-z]|[\u00A0-\uD7FF\uF900-\uFDCF\uFDF0-\uFFEF])|(([a-z]|[\u00A0-\uD7FF\uF900-\uFDCF\uFDF0-\uFFEF])([a-z]|\d|-|\.|_|~|[\u00A0-\uD7FF\uF900-\uFDCF\uFDF0-\uFFEF])*([a-z]|[\u00A0-\uD7FF\uF900-\uFDCF\uFDF0-\uFFEF])))\.?)(:\d*)?)(\/((([a-z]|\d|-|\.|_|~|[\u00A0-\uD7FF\uF900-\uFDCF\uFDF0-\uFFEF])|(%[\da-f]{2})|[!\$&'\(\)\*\+,;=]|:|#)+(\/(([a-z]|\d|-|\.|_|~|[\u00A0-\uD7FF\uF900-\uFDCF\uFDF0-\uFFEF])|(%[\da-f]{2})|[!\$&'\(\)\*\+,;=]|:|#)*)*)?)?(\?((([a-z]|\d|-|\.|_|~|[\u00A0-\uD7FF\uF900-\uFDCF\uFDF0-\uFFEF])|(%[\da-f]{2})|[!\$&'\(\)\*\+,;=]|:|#)|[\uE000-\uF8FF]|\/|\?)*)?(\#((([a-z]|\d|-|\.|_|~|[\u00A0-\uD7FF\uF900-\uFDCF\uFDF0-\uFFEF])|(%[\da-f]{2})|[!\$&'\(\)\*\+,;=]|:|#)|\/|\?)*)?$/i;
/^/ is a regex literal, meaning it's a valid regex object in it's own right. This means that /^/.source === "^".
This seems like an arbitrary example of using the source property as this means the author could have just placed a "^" in it's place, or even just put a ^ at the beginning of the next string, and it would have the same effect.
The .source property returns the content of the regex between the forward slashes as you say. so the result of the above is equivalent to this string:
/^((.+):\/\/)?(((([a-z]|\d|-|\.|_|~|[\u00A0-\uD7FF\uF900-\uFDCF\uFDF0-\uFFEF])|(%[\da-f]{2})|[!\$&'\(\)\*\+,;=]|:)*#)?(((\d|[1-9]\d|1\d\d|2[0-4]\d|25[0-5])\.(\d|[1-9]\d|1\d\d|2[0-4]\d|25[0-5])\.(\d|[1-9]\d|1\d\d|2[0-4]\d|25[0-5])\.(\d|[1-9]\d|1\d\d|2[0-4]\d|25[0-5]))|((([a-z]|\d|[\u00A0-\uD7FF\uF900-\uFDCF\uFDF0-\uFFEF])|(([a-z]|\d|[\u00A0-\uD7FF\uF900-\uFDCF\uFDF0-\uFFEF])([a-z]|\d|-|\.|_|~|[\u00A0-\uD7FF\uF900-\uFDCF\uFDF0-\uFFEF])*([a-z]|\d|[\u00A0-\uD7FF\uF900-\uFDCF\uFDF0-\uFFEF])))\.)+(([a-z]|[\u00A0-\uD7FF\uF900-\uFDCF\uFDF0-\uFFEF])|(([a-z]|[\u00A0-\uD7FF\uF900-\uFDCF\uFDF0-\uFFEF])([a-z]|\d|-|\.|_|~|[\u00A0-\uD7FF\uF900-\uFDCF\uFDF0-\uFFEF])*([a-z]|[\u00A0-\uD7FF\uF900-\uFDCF\uFDF0-\uFFEF])))\.?)(:\d*)?)(\/((([a-z]|\d|-|\.|_|~|[\u00A0-\uD7FF\uF900-\uFDCF\uFDF0-\uFFEF])|(%[\da-f]{2})|[!\$&'\(\)\*\+,;=]|:|#)+(\/(([a-z]|\d|-|\.|_|~|[\u00A0-\uD7FF\uF900-\uFDCF\uFDF0-\uFFEF])|(%[\da-f]{2})|[!\$&'\(\)\*\+,;=]|:|#)*)*)?)?(\?((([a-z]|\d|-|\.|_|~|[\u00A0-\uD7FF\uF900-\uFDCF\uFDF0-\uFFEF])|(%[\da-f]{2})|[!\$&'\(\)\*\+,;=]|:|#)|[\uE000-\uF8FF]|\/|\?)*)?(\#((([a-z]|\d|-|\.|_|~|[\u00A0-\uD7FF\uF900-\uFDCF\uFDF0-\uFFEF])|(%[\da-f]{2})|[!\$&'\(\)\*\+,;=]|:|#)|\/|\?)*)?$/i
In JavaScript you can write regexes like this: /matchsomething/ or using the RegExp function/constructor above. It looks like the code you found is the result of someone not know what they were doing. They seem to have taken a few regexes using the literal syntax (i.e /match_here/) and plugged it into the constructor version and stuck them all together.
I can't see any benefit in using the source property this way. I would just use the string version or the constructor version. Or better, find out what the original author intended and write it again or find a respected regex library with the criteria you need.
And, yeah, wow. It's massive.
I'm trying to improve my understanding of Regex, but this one has me quite mystified.
I started with some text defined as:
var txt = "{\"columns\":[{\"text\":\"A\",\"value\":80},{\"text\":\"B\",\"renderer\":\"gbpFormat\",\"value\":80},{\"text\":\"C\",\"value\":80}]}";
and do a replace as follows:
txt.replace(/\"renderer\"\:(.*)(?:,)/g,"\"renderer\"\:gbpFormat\,");
which results in:
"{"columns":[{"text":"A","value":80},{"text":"B","renderer":gbpFormat,"value":80}]}"
What I expected was for the renderer attribute value to have it's quotes removed; which has happened, but also the C column is completely missing! I'd really love for someone to explain how my Regex has removed column C?
As an extra bonus, if you could explain how to remove the quotes around any value for renderer (i.e. so I don't have to hard-code the value gbpFormat in the regex) that'd be fantastic.
You are using a greedy operator while you need a lazy one. Change this:
"renderer":(.*)(?:,)
^---- add here the '?' to make it lazy
To
"renderer":(.*?)(?:,)
Working demo
Your code should be:
txt.replace(/\"renderer\"\:(.*?)(?:,)/g,"\"renderer\"\:gbpFormat\,");
If you are learning regex, take a look at this documentation to know more about greedyness. A nice extract to understand this is:
Watch Out for The Greediness!
Suppose you want to use a regex to match an HTML tag. You know that
the input will be a valid HTML file, so the regular expression does
not need to exclude any invalid use of sharp brackets. If it sits
between sharp brackets, it is an HTML tag.
Most people new to regular expressions will attempt to use <.+>. They
will be surprised when they test it on a string like This is a
first test. You might expect the regex to match and when
continuing after that match, .
But it does not. The regex will match first. Obviously not
what we wanted. The reason is that the plus is greedy. That is, the
plus causes the regex engine to repeat the preceding token as often as
possible. Only if that causes the entire regex to fail, will the regex
engine backtrack. That is, it will go back to the plus, make it give
up the last iteration, and proceed with the remainder of the regex.
Like the plus, the star and the repetition using curly braces are
greedy.
Try like this:
txt = txt.replace(/"renderer":"(.*?)"/g,'"renderer":$1');
The issue in the expression you were using was this part:
(.*)(?:,)
By default, the * quantifier is greedy by default, which means that it gobbles up as much as it can, so it will run up to the last comma in your string. The easiest solution would be to turn that in to a non-greedy quantifier, by adding a question mark after the asterisk and change that part of your expression to look like this
(.*?)(?:,)
For the solution I proposed at the top of this answer, I also removed the part matching the comma, because I think it's easier just to match everything between quotes. As for your bonus question, to replace the matched value instead of having to hardcode gbpFormat, I used a backreference ($1), which will insert the first matched group into the replacement string.
Don't manipulate JSON with regexp. It's too likely that you will break it, as you have found, and more importantly there's no need to.
In addition, once you have changed
'{"columns": [..."renderer": "gbpFormat", ...]}'
into
'{"columns": [..."renderer": gbpFormat, ...]}' // remove quotes from gbpFormat
then this is no longer valid JSON. (JSON requires that property values be numbers, quoted strings, objects, or arrays.) So you will not be able to parse it, or send it anywhere and have it interpreted correctly.
Therefore you should parse it to start with, then manipulate the resulting actual JS object:
var object = JSON.parse(txt);
object.columns.forEach(function(column) {
column.renderer = ghpFormat;
});
If you want to replace any quoted value of the renderer property with the value itself, then you could try
column.renderer = window[column.renderer];
Assuming that the value is available in the global namespace.
This question falls into the category of "I need a regexp, or I wrote one and it's not working, and I'm not really sure why it has to be a regexp, but I heard they can do all kinds of things, so that's just what I imagined I must need." People use regexps to try to do far too many complex matching, splitting, scanning, replacement, and validation tasks, including on complex languages such as HTML, or in this case JSON. There is almost always a better way.
The only time I can imagine wanting to manipulate JSON with regexps is if the JSON is broken somehow, perhaps due to a bug in server code, and it needs to be fixed up in order to be parseable.
Thanks for looking!
BACKGROUND
I am writing some front-end code that consumes a JSON service which is returning malformed JSON. Specifically, the keys are not surrounded with quotes:
{foo: "bar"}
I have NO CONTROL over the service, so I am correcting this like so:
var scrubbedJson = dirtyJson.replace(/(['"])?([a-zA-Z0-9_]+)(['"])?:/g, '"$2": ');
This gives me well formed JSON:
{"foo": "bar"}
Problem
However, when I call JSON.parse(scrubbedJson), I still get an error. I suspect it may be because the entire JSON string is surrounded in double quotes but I am not sure.
UPDATE
This has been solved--the above code works fine. I had a rogue single quote in the body of the JSON that was returned. I got that out of there and everything now parses. Thanks.
Any help would be appreciated.
You can avoid using a regexp altogether and still output a JavaScript object from a malformed JSON string (keys without quotes, single quotes, etc), using this simple trick:
var jsonify = (function(div){
return function(json){
div.setAttribute('onclick', 'this.__json__ = ' + json);
div.click();
return div.__json__;
}
})(document.createElement('div'));
// Let's say you had a string like '{ one: 1 }' (malformed, a key without quotes)
// jsonify('{ one: 1 }') will output a good ol' JS object ;)
Here's a demo: http://codepen.io/csuwldcat/pen/dfzsu (open your console)
something like this may help to repair the json ..
$str='{foo:"bar"}';
echo preg_replace('/({)([a-zA-Z0-9]+)(:)/','$1"$2"${3}',$str);
Output:
{"foo":"bar"}
EDIT:
var str='{foo:"bar"}';
str.replace(/({)([a-zA-Z0-9]+)(:)/,'$1"$2"$3')
There is a project that takes care of all kinds of invalid cases in JSON https://github.com/freethenation/durable-json-lint
I was trying to solve the same problem using a regEx in Javascript. I have an app written for Node.js to parse incoming JSON, but wanted a "relaxed" version of the parser (see following comments), since it is inconvenient to put quotes around every key (name). Here is my solution:
var objKeysRegex = /({|,)(?:\s*)(?:')?([A-Za-z_$\.][A-Za-z0-9_ \-\.$]*)(?:')?(?:\s*):/g;// look for object names
var newQuotedKeysString = originalString.replace(objKeysRegex, "$1\"$2\":");// all object names should be double quoted
var newObject = JSON.parse(newQuotedKeysString);
Here's a breakdown of the regEx:
({|,) looks for the beginning of the object, a { for flat objects or , for embedded objects.
(?:\s*) finds but does not remember white space
(?:')? finds but does not remember a single quote (to be replaced by a double quote later). There will be either zero or one of these.
([A-Za-z_$\.][A-Za-z0-9_ \-\.$]*) is the name (or key). Starts with any letter, underscore, $, or dot, followed by zero or more alpha-numeric characters or underscores or dashes or dots or $.
the last character : is what delimits the name of the object from the value.
Now we can use replace() with some dressing to get our newly quoted keys:
originalString.replace(objKeysRegex, "$1\"$2\":")
where the $1 is either { or , depending on whether the object was embedded in another object. \" adds a double quote. $2 is the name. \" another double quote. and finally : finishes it off.
Test it out with
{keyOne: "value1", $keyTwo: "value 2", key-3:{key4:18.34}}
output:
{"keyOne": "value1","$keyTwo": "value 2","key-3":{"key4":18.34}}
Some comments:
I have not tested this method for speed, but from what I gather by reading some of these entries is that using a regex is faster than eval()
For my application, I'm limiting the characters that names are allowed to have with ([A-Za-z_$\.][A-Za-z0-9_ \-\.$]*) for my 'relaxed' version JSON parser. If you wanted to allow more characters in names (you can do that and still be valid), you could instead use ([^'":]+) to mean anything other than double or single quotes or a colon. You can have all sorts of stuff in here with this expression, so be careful.
One shortcoming is that this method actually changes the original incoming data (but I think that's what you wanted?). You could program around that to mitigate this issue - depends on your needs and resources available.
Hope this helps.
-John L.
How about?
function fixJson(json) {
var tempString, tempJson, output;
tempString = JSON.stringify(json);
tempJson = JSON.parse(tempString);
output = JSON.stringify(tempJson);
return output;
}
sorry for novice question.
What is the difference, are thay same or different?
$scope.someVar = {first: true}
$scope.someVar = {'first': true}
In Javascript there is no difference, except in cases where the property name is a JS keyword or contains special characters (eg symbols, spaces, etc), or would otherwise be invalid as a variable name (eg starting with a digit), in which case the quotes are necessary to avoid a syntax error.
One reason for this confusion is JSON -- In JSON strings, the quotes are mandatory. I know you're not writing JSON in the code in the question, but this difference between JSON and JS does catch people out, particularly because a lot of people think of JSON as being the same as Javascript; they're not (quite) the same.
They're the same. The second one is necessary when the key contains a reserved keywords, or spaces, like
{ 'some-id+with/special:chara cters': true}