We're all familiar with naming conventions in R (if not: Venables & Smith - Introduction to R, Chapter 1.8). Regular expressions, on the other hand, remain terra incognita and the most hated part in my programming life so far ... Recently, I've officially started JavaScript recapitulation, and I'm trying to create precise RegExp to check correct R object name.
Brief intro:
Object names must start with . or lower/uppercase letter, and if they start with . cannot continue with numeric... afterward, alphanumeric symbols are allowed with . and underscore _.
Long story short, here's my JS code:
var txt = "._.";
var inc = /^\.(?!\d)|^[a-z\.]/i;
document.write(inc.test(txt));
This approach manages the first part (. and/or lower/upper case and numeric after .), but I cannot pass something like & [\w\.]. I can write a function that will take care of this one, but is it at all possible to manage this with a single RegExp?
I'm not familiar with R or its naming conventions, but I'll give it a shot:
If you're only trying to verify that the name begins correctly, all you need to do is remove the \. from the character class, leaving you with: /^\.(?!\d)|^[a-z]/i. Otherwise, the . may still be the first character with no restrictions on the remaining ones.
If you want to verify the that entire name is correct, something like this should work:
/^(?:\.(?!\d)|[a-z])[a-z0-9_\.]+$/i
Related
I'm trying to implement a username form validation in javascript where the username
can't start with numbers
can't have whitespaces
can't have any symbols but only One dot or One underscore or One dash
example of a valid username: the_user-one.123
example of invalid username: 1----- user
i've been trying to implement this for awhile but i couldn't figure out how to have only one of each allowed symbol:-
const usernameValidation = /(?=^[\w.-]+$)^\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'm trying to parse a very simple language with nearley: you can put a string between matching opening and closing tags, and you can chain some tags. It looks like a kind of XML, but with[ instead of < , with tag always 2 chars long, and without nesting.
[aa]My text[/aa][ab]Another Text[/ab]
But I don't seem to be able to parse correctly this, as I get the grammar should be unambiguous as soon as I have more than one tag.
The grammar that I have right now:
#builtin "string.ne"
#builtin "whitespace.ne"
openAndCloseTag[X] -> "[" $X "]" string "[/" $X "]"
languages -> openAndCloseTag[[a-zA-Z] [a-zA-Z]] (_ openAndCloseTag[[a-zA-Z] [a-zA-Z]]):*
string -> sstrchar:* {% (d) => d[0].join("") %}
And related, Ideally I would like the tags to be case insensitive (eg. [bc]TESt[/BC] would be valid)
Has anyone any idea how we can do that? I wasn't able to find a nearley XML parser example .
Your language is almost too simple to need a parser generator. And at the same time, it is not context free, which makes it difficult to use a parser generator. So it is quite possible that the Nearly parser is not the best tool for you, although it is probably possible to make it work with a bit of hackery.
First things first. You have not actually provided an unambiguous definition of your language, which is why your parser reports an ambiguity. To see the ambiguity, consider the input
[aa]My text[/ab][ab]Another Text[/aa]
That's very similar to your test input; all I did was swap a pair of letters. Now, here's the question: Is that a valid input consisting of a single aa tag? Or is it a syntax error? (That's a serious question. Some definitions of tagging systems like this consider a tag to only be closed by a matching close tag, so that things which look like different tags are considered to be plain text. Such systems would accept the input as a single tagged value.)
The problem is that you define string as sstrchar:*, and if we look at the definition of sstrchar in string.ne, we see (leaving out the postprocessing actions, which are irrelevant):
sstrchar -> [^\\'\n]
| "\\" strescape
| "\\'"
Now, the first possibility is "any character other than a backslash, a single quote or a newline", and it's easy to see that all of the characters in [/ab] are in sstrchar. (It's not clear to me why you chose sstrchar; single quotes don't appear to be special in your language. Or perhaps you just didn't mention their significance.) So a string could extend up to the end of the input. Of course, the syntax requires a closing tag, and the Nearley parser is determined to find a match if there is one. But, in fact, there are two of them. So the parser declares an ambiguity, since it doesn't have any criterion to choose between the two close tags.
And here's where we come up against the issue that your language is not context-free. (Actually, it is context-free in some technical sense, because there are "only" 676 two-letter case-insensitive tags, and it would theoretically be possible to list all 676 possibilities. But I'm guessing you don't want to do that.)
A context-free grammar cannot express a language that insists that two non-terminals expand to the same string. That's the very definition of context-free: if one non-terminal can only match the same input as a previous non-terminal, then
the second non-terminals match is dependent on the context, specifically on the match produced by the first non-terminal. In a context-free grammar, a non-terminal expands to the same thing, regardless of the rest of the text. The context in which the non-terminal appears is not allowed to influence the expansion.
Now, you quite possibly expected that your macro definition:
openAndCloseTag[X] -> "[" $X "]" string "[/" $X "]"
is expressing a context-sensitive match by repeating the $X macro parameter. But it is not by accident that the Nearley documentation describes this construct as a macro. X here refers exactly to the string used in the macro invocation. So when you say:
openAndCloseTag[[a-zA-Z] [a-zA-Z]]
Nearly macro expands that to
"[" [a-zA-Z] [a-zA-Z] "]" string "[/" [a-zA-Z] [a-zA-Z] "]"
and that's what it will use as the grammar production. Observe that the two $X macro parameters were expanded to the same argument, but that doesn't mean that will match the same input text. Each of those subpatterns will independently match any two alphabetic characters. Context-freely.
As I alluded to earlier, you could use this macro to write out the 676 possible tag patterns:
tag -> openAndCloseTag["aa"i]
| openAndCloseTag["ab"i]
| openAndCloseTag["ac"i]
| ...
| openAndCloseTag["zz"i]
If you did that (and you managed to correctly list all of the possibilities) then the parser would not complain about ambiguity as long as you never use the same tag twice in the same input. So it would be ok with both your original input and my altered input (as long as you accept the interpretation that my input is a single tagged object). But it would still report the following as ambiguous:
[aa]My text[/aa][aa]Another Text[/aa]
That's ambiguous because the grammar allows it to be either a single aa tagged string (whose text includes characters which look like close and open tags) or as two consecutive aa tagged strings.
To eliminate the ambiguity you would have to write the string pattern in a way which does not permit internal tags, in the same way that sstrchar doesn't allow internal single quotes. Except, of course, it is not nearly so simple to match a string which doesn't contain a pattern, than to match a string which doesn't contain a single character. It could be done using Nearley, but I really don't think that it's what you want.
Probably your best bet is to use native Javascript regular expressions to match tagged strings. This will prove simpler because Javascript regular expressions are much more powerful than mathematical regular expressions, even allowing the possibility of matching (certain) context-sensitive constructions. You could, for example, use Javascript regular expressions with the Moo lexer, which integrates well into Nearley. Or you could just use the regular expressions directly, since once you match the tagged text, there isn't much else you need to do.
To get you started, here's a simple Javascript regular expression which matches tagged strings with matching case-insensitive labels (the i flag at the end):
/\[([a-zA-Z]{2})\].*?\[\/\1\]/gmi
You can play with it online using Regex 101
Can i write something like this
class Person{
testMethod(){
return true;
}
}
var People = new Person();
console.log(People.testMethod());
can i initialize with Capital Letter for class instance ?
Yes, you can. But it is not a standard way of naming your instance variables as it makes readability poor. If a third person reads your code, he/she would like to expect the Class names starting with Capital letters and instance variables with small letters.
Here is a list of naming conventions that should be followed as a good practice. https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Developer_guide/Coding_Style
Yes you can! But the standard in Javascript is that capital letter are for Classes or constructor functions! And camel case for variables and functions!
I really recommend you to use ESlint to force you to follow some code style! Also I recommend Standard JS rules: https://standardjs.com/ (probably the most used code style)
Class name conventions
Class, interface, record, and typedef names are written in UpperCamelCase. Unexported classes are simply locals: they are not marked #private and therefore are not named with a trailing underscore.
Type names are typically nouns or noun phrases. For example, Request, ImmutableList, or VisibilityMode. Additionally, interface names may sometimes be adjectives or adjective phrases instead (for example, Readable).
Rules common to all identifiers -
Identifiers use only ASCII letters and digits, and, in a small number of cases noted below, underscores and very rarely (when required by frameworks like Angular) dollar signs.
Give as descriptive a name as possible, within reason. Do not worry about saving horizontal space as it is far more important to make your code immediately understandable by a new reader. Do not use abbreviations that are ambiguous or unfamiliar to readers outside your project, and do not abbreviate by deleting letters within a word.
priceCountReader // No abbreviation.
numErrors // "num" is a widespread convention.
numDnsConnections // Most people know what "DNS" stands for.
n // Meaningless.
nErr // Ambiguous abbreviation.
nCompConns // Ambiguous abbreviation.
wgcConnections // Only your group knows what this stands for.
pcReader // Lots of things can be abbreviated "pc".
cstmrId // Deletes internal letters.
kSecondsPerDay // Do not use Hungarian notation.
I made this regular expression: /.net.(\w*)/
I'm trying to capture the qa in a string like this:
https://xxxxxx.cloudfront.net/qa/club/Slide1.PNG
I'm doing .replace on it like so location.replace(/.net.(\w*)/,data.newName));
But instead of capturing qa, it captures .net, when I run the code in Javascript
According to this online regex tool made for ruby, it captures qa as intended
http://rubular.com/r/ItrG7BRNRn
What's the difference between Javascript regexes and Ruby regexes, and how can I make my regex work as intended in javascript?
Edit:
I changed my code to this:
var str = `https://xxxxxxxxxx.cloudfront.net/qa/club`;
var re = /\.net\/([^\/]*)\//;
console.log(data2.files[i].location.replace(re,'$1'+ "test"));
And instead of
https://dm7svtk8jb00c.cloudfront.net/test/club
I get this:
https://dm7svtk8jb00c.cloudfrontqatestclub
If I remove the $1 I get https://dm7svtk8jb00c.cloudfronttestclub, which is closer, but I want to keep the slashes.
This would be a better regex:
/\.net\/([^\/]*)\//
Remember that . will match any character, not the period character. For that you need to escape it with a leading backslash: \.
Also, \w will only match numbers, letters and underscores. You could quite legitimately have a dash in that part of the URL. Therefore you're far better off matching anything that isn't a forward slash.
I am not sure how Ruby works, but JavaScript replace will not just replace the capture group, it replaces the whole matched string. By adding another capture group, you can use $1 to add back in the string you want to keep.
...replace(/(.net.)(\w*)/,"$1" + data.newName");
You have to do that like this:
location.replace(/(\.net.)(\w*)/, '$1' + data.newName)
replace replaces the whole matched substring, not a particular group. Ruby works exactly in the same way:
ruby -e "puts 'https://xxxxxx.cloudfront.net/qa/club/Slide1.PNG'.sub(/.net.(\w*)/, '##')"
https://xxxxxx.cloudfront##/club/Slide1.PNG
ruby -e "puts 'https://xxxxxx.cloudfront.net/qa/club/Slide1.PNG'.sub(/(.net.)(\w*)/, '\\1' + '##')"
https://xxxxxx.cloudfront.net/##/club/Slide1.PNG
There's no difference (at least with the pattern you've provided). In both cases, the expression matches ".net/qa", with qa being the first capture group within the expression. Notice that even in your linked example the entire match is highlighted.
I'd recommend something like this:
location.replace(/(.net.)\w*/, "$1" + data.newName);
Or this, to be a bit safer:
location.replace(/(.net.)\w*/, function(m, a) { return a + data.newName; });
It's not so much a different between JavaScript and Ruby's implementations of regular expressions, it's your pattern that needs a bit of work. It's not tight enough.
You can use something like /\.net\/([^\/]+)/, which you can see in action at Rubular.
That returns the characters delimited by / following .net.
Regex patterns are very powerful, but they're also fraught with dangerous side-effects that open up big holes easily, causing false-positives, which can ruin results unexpectedly. Until you know them well, start simply, and test them every imaginable way. And, once you think you know them well, keep doing that; Patterns in code we write where I work are a particular hot-button for me, and I'm always finding holes in them in our code-reviews and requiring them to be tightened until they do exactly what the developer meant, not what they thought they meant.
While the pattern above works, I'd probably do it a bit differently in Ruby. Using the tools made for the job:
require 'uri'
URL = 'https://xxxxxx.cloudfront.net/qa/club/Slide1.PNG'
uri = URI.parse(URL)
path = uri.path # => "/qa/club/Slide1.PNG"
path.split('/')[1] # => "qa"
Or, more succinctly:
URI.parse(URL).path.split('/')[1] # => "qa"
I'm using Fancy Upload 3 and onSelect of a file I need to run a check to make sure the user doesn't have any bad characters in the filename. I'm currently getting people uploading files with hieroglyphics and such in the names.
What I need is to check if the filename only contains:
A-Z
a-z
0-9
_ (underscore)
- (minus)
SPACE
ÀÈÌÒÙàèìòùÁÉÍÓÚÝáéíóúýÂÊÎÔÛâêîôûÃÑÕãñõÄËÏÖÜäëïöü (as single and double byte)
Obviously you can see the difficult thing there. The non-english single and double byte chars.
I've seen this:
[\u00A0-\uD7FF\uF900-\uFDCF\uFDF0-\uFFEF]
And this:
[\x80-\xA5]
But neither of them fully cover the situation right.
Examples that should work:
fást.zip
abc.zip
ABC.zip
Über.zip
Examples that should NOT work:
∑∑ø∆.zip
¡wow!.zip
•§ªº¶.zip
The following is close, but I'm NO RegEx'pert, not even close.
var filenameReg = /^[A-Za-z0-9-_]|[\x00A0-\xD7FF\xF900-\xFDCF\xFDF0-\xFFEF]+$/;
Thanks in advance.
Solution from Zafer mostly works, but it does not catch all of the other symbols, see below.
Uncaught:
¡£¢§¶ª«ø¨¥®´åß©¬æ÷µç
Caught:
™∞•–≠'"πˆ†∑œ∂ƒ˙∆˚…≥≤˜∫√≈Ω
Regex:
var filenameReg = /^([A-Za-z0-9\-_. ]|[\x00A0-\xD7FF\xF900-\xFDCF\xFDF0-\xFFEF])+$/;
Alternation between two character classes (ie. [abc]|[def]) can be simplified to a single character class ([abcdef]) -- the first can be read as "(a or b or c) OR (d or e or f)"; the second as "(a or b or c or d or e or f)". What probably tripped up your regular expression is the unescaped dash in the first class -- if you want a literal dash, it should be the last character in the class.
So we'll modify your expression to get it working:
var filenameReg = /^[A-Za-z0-9_\x00A0-\xD7FF\xF900-\xFDCF\xFDF0-\xFFEF-]+$/;
The problem now is that you're not accounting for the file extension, but that is an easy modification (assuming you're always getting .zip files):
var filenameReg = /^[A-Za-z0-9_\x00A0-\xD7FF\xF900-\xFDCF\xFDF0-\xFFEF-]+\.zip$/;
Replace zip with another pattern if the extension differs.
It looks like it is the character ranges that are causing the problem, because they include some unallowable characters in between. Since you already have the list of allowable characters, the best thing would be to just use that directly:
var filenameReg = /^[A-Za-z0-9_\-\ ÀÈÌÒÙàèìòùÁÉÍÓÚÝáéíóúýÂÊÎÔÛâêîôûÃÑÕãñõÄËÏÖÜäëïöü]+$/;
The following should work:
var filenameReg = /^([A-Za-z0-9\-_. ]|[\x00A0-\xD7FF\xF900-\xFDCF\xFDF0-\xFFEF])+$/;
I've put \ next to - and grouped two expressions otherwise + sign doesn't affect the first expression.
EDIT 1 :I've also put . in the expression.
We have diffrent rules for diffrent platforms. But I think you mean long file names in windows. For that you can use following RegEx:
var longFilenames = #"^[^\./:*\?\""<>\|]{1}[^\/:*\?\""<>\|]{0,254}$";
NOTE: Instead of saying which Character is allowed, you need to say which ones are not allowed!
But keep in mind that this is not 100% complete RegEx. If you really want to make it complete you have to add exceptions for reserved names as well.
You can find more information about filename rules here:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa365247%28VS.85%29.aspx