I have made this regular expression which does exactly what I want when I test it in e.g. RegExr:
^https?:\/\/(www\.)?(test\.yahoo\.com|sub\.yahoo\.com)?(?!([a-z0-9]+\.)?(localhost|yahoo\.com))(.*)?
However when I test it in javascript it says that the expression is invalid. After hours of debugging I found out that this expression works in javascript:
^https?:\/\/(www\.)?(test\.yahoo\.com|sub\.yahoo\.com)?(?![a-z0-9]+\.)?(localhost|yahoo\.com)(.*)?
However this doesn't do what I want (again testing in RegExr).
Why cannot I use the first expression in javascript? And how do I fix it?
UPDATE JULY 25
Sorry for the lack of info. The way I am using the Regexp is through a jQuery extension which lets me select using regexp. The script can be seen here: http://james.padolsey.com/javascript/regex-selector-for-jquery/
The specific code I am trying to get to work is:
$('a:regex(href, ^https?:\/\/(www\.)?(test\.yahoo\.com|sub\.yahoo\.com)?(?!([a-z0-9]+\.)?(localhost|yahoo\.com))(.*)?)').live('click', function(e) {
After including the linked jQuery plugin. The text strings I am testing are:
http://yahoo.com
http://google.dk
http://subdomain.yahoo.com
http://test.yahoo.com
http://localhost.dk
http://sub.yahoo.com/lalala
Where it is supposed to match "http://google.dk", "http://test.yahoo.com" and "http://sub.yahoo.com/lalala" - which it does when using RegExr but failing (invalid expression) using the jQuery plugin.
The first regular expression is not invalid:
var regexp = /^https?:\/\/(www\.)?(test\.yahoo\.com|sub\.yahoo\.com)?(?!([a-z0-9]+\.)?(localhost|yahoo\.com))(.*)?/;
works fine.
If you want to instantiate the expression from a string, you have to double all the backslashes:
var regexp = new RegExp("^https?:\\/\\/(www\\.)?(test\\.yahoo\\.com|sub\\.yahoo\\.com)?(?!([a-z0-9]+\\.)?(localhost|yahoo\\.com))(.*)?");
When you start from a string, you have to account for the fact that the string constant itself uses backslashes as a quoting mechanism, so there will be two evaluations made: one as a string, and one as a regular expression.
edit — OK I think I see the problem. That plugin you're trying to use is simply attempting to do something that's just not going to work, given the way that Sizzle parses selectors. In other words, the problem is not with your regular expression, it's with the overall selector. It is not even getting far enough to parse the regular expression.
Specifically it seems to be nested parentheses inside the regular expression. Something as simple as
$('a:regex(href, ((abc)))')
causes an error. You can instead do something like this:
$('a').filter(function() {
return /^https?:\/\/(www\.)?(test\.yahoo\.com|sub\.yahoo\.com)?(?!([a-z0-9]+\.)?(localhost|yahoo\.com))(.*)?/.test(this.href);
}).whatever( ... );
Related
I need to create a regular expression that matches a process number that has the following pattern #######-##.####.7.09.0009 where # means numbers from 0 to 9. Here is what I came up with after some research:
var regex = new RegExp("^[0-9]{7}[\-][0-9]{2}[\.][0-9]{4}[\.7\.09\.0009]$");
I also tried:
/^[0-9]{7}\-[0-9]{2}\.[0-9]{4}\.7\.09\.0009$/
/^[0-9]{7}\\-[0-9]{2}\\.[0-9]{4}\\.7\\.09\\.0009$/
Try this:
const pattern = /\d{7}\-\d{2}\.\d{4}\.7\.09\.0009/
Regexper is a great tool that I use whenever I'm writing a regular expression, I find it really helps to visualize what the expression is actually doing. Check it out.
For reference, here is the original pattern that you posted -- it looks like the main problem is that you are defining character classes in several places using [ and ] where you really don't need them at all.
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.
I have an html checkbox element with the following name:
type_config[selected_licenses][CC BY-NC-ND 3.0]
I would like to break this name apart as follows and returned as part of an array:
["type_config", "[selected_licenses]", "[CC BY-NC-ND 3.0]", "[selected_licenses][CC BY-NC-ND 3.0]"]
I thought I could do this by using a regular expression in javascript. Here is the expression that I am using:
matches = /([a-zA-Z0-9_]*)((\[[a-zA-Z0-9_\.\s]*\])+)*/.exec(element_name);
but this is the result I am getting in my matches variable:
["type_config[selected_licenses]", "type_config", "[selected_licenses]", "[selected_licenses]", index: 0, input: "type_config[selected_licenses][CC BY-ND 3.0]"]
I am half way there. What am I doing wrong in my regular expression? I guess I should also ask if it is possible to accomplish what I want with a regex?
Thanks.
The problem with this kind of goal is that there's no simple way to achieve this with regular expression, i.e. a simple match call. In short, even if you put a quantifier after a capturing group, the captured string will always be just one.
You'll have to rely on something more specific, like breaking the string with a repeated use of indexOf, or something like
name.split(/(?=\[)/);
Maybe you want to be sure that name is formally correct.
This is a very ugly problem. I don't know how repeatable this is, but I can do it:
Regex
^(\w+)(?<firstbracket>\[(?<secondbracket>[^]]*)\]\[(.*?)\])$
Replacement
["$1", "[$3]", "[$4]", "$2"]
Demo
http://regex101.com/r/eD9mH8
I'm trying to find out if a string contains css code with this expression:
var pattern = new RegExp('\s(?[a-zA-Z-]+)\s[:]{1}\s*(?[a-zA-Z0-9\s.#]+)[;]{1}');
But I get "invalid regular expression" error on the line above...
What's wrong with it?
found the regex here: http://www.catswhocode.com/blog/10-regular-expressions-for-efficient-web-development
It's for PHP but it should work in javascript too, right?
What are the ? at the start of the two [a-zA-z-] blocks for? They look wrong to me.
The ? is unfortunately somewhat overload in regexp syntax, it can have three different meanings that I know of, and none of them match what I see in your example.
Also, your \s sequences need the backslash escaping because this is a string - they should look like \\s. To avoid escaping, just use the /.../ syntax instead of new Regexp("...").
That said, even that is insufficient - the regexp still produces an Invalid Group error in Chrome, probably related to the {1} sequences.
The ?'s are messing it up. I'm not sure what they are for.
/\s[a-zA-Z\-]+\s*:\s*[a-zA-Z0-9\s.#]+;/
worked for me (as far as compiling. I didn't test to see if it properly detected a CSS string).
Replace the quotes with / (slashes):
var pattern = /\s([a-zA-Z-]+)\s[:]{1}\s*([a-zA-Z0-9\s.#]+)[;]{1}/;
You also don't need the new RegExp() part either, which is why it's been removed; instead of using a quote or double quote to denote a string, JavaScript uses a slash / to denote a regular expression, which isn't a normal string.
That regular expression is very bad and I would avoid its source in the future. That said, I cleaned it up a bit and got the following result:
var pattern = /\s(?:[a-zA-Z-]+)\s*:\s*(?:[^;\n\r]+);/;
this matches something that looks like css, for example:
background-color: red;
Here's the fiddle to prove it, though I'd recommend to find a different solution to your problem. This is a very simple regex and it's not save to say that it is reliable.