I want to add a validation to input field so that it won't accept zero as valid input. I want to use a regex for that, so it allows everything except zero.
I tested a couple of regex e.g. ^((?!0).)*$ but did not quite get the thing that I was looking for.
Maybe with .(?!0)
? Normally this should work, as . matches any character excepted new line.
Don't forget to add the flag g when you use your regexp, otherwise, it will stop after first matching.
Your final regexp should then be : /.(?!0)/g
Related
I have been looking through a lot on Regex lately and have seen a lot of answers involving the matching of one word, where a second word is absent. I have seen a lot of Regex Examples where I can have a Regex search for a given word (or any more complex regex in its place) and find where a word is missing.
It seems like the works very well on a line by line basis, but after including the multi-line mode it still doesn't seem to match properly.
Example: Match an entire file string where the word foo is included, but the word bar is absent from the file. What I have so far is (?m)^(?=.*?(foo))((?!bar).)*$ which is based off the example link. I have been testing with a Ruby Regex tester, but I think it is a open ended regex problem/question. It seems to match smaller pieces, I would like to have it either match/not match on the entire string as one big chunk.
In the provided example above, matches are found on a line by line basis it seems. What changes need to be made to the regex so it applies over the ENTIRE string?
EDIT: I know there are other more efficient ways to solve this problem that doesn't involve using a regex. I am not looking for a solution to the problem using other means, I am asking from a theoretical regex point of view. It has a multi-line mode (which looks to "work"), it has negative/positive searching which can be combined on a line by line basis, how come combining these two principals doesn't yield the expected result?
Sawa's answer can be simplified, all that's needed is a positive lookahead, a negative lookahead, and since you're in multiline mode, .* takes care of the rest:
/(?=.*foo)(?!.*bar).*/m
Multiline means that . matches \n also, and matches are greedy. So the whole string will match without the need for anchors.
Update
#Sawa makes a good point for the \A being necessary but not the \Z.
Actually, looking at it again, the positive lookahead seems unnecessary:
/\A(?!.*bar).*foo.*/m
A regex that matches an entire string that does not include foo is:
/\A(?!.*foo.*).*\z/m
and a regex that matches from the beginning of an entire string that includes bar is:
/\A.*bar/m
Since you want to satisfy both of these, take a conjunction of these by putting one of them in a lookahead:
/\A(?=.*bar)(?!.*foo.*).*\z/m
I just want to capture the part of the string in nbnbaasd<sd which appears before any a.
I want it to return nbnb as the match.
/.+(?!a)/.match("nbnbaasd<sd") # returns the whole string
Just use a negated character set:
/[^a]+/.match("nbnbaasd<sd")
It's far more efficient than the look-ahead method.
See it here in action: http://regexr.com?32288
It returns the whole string because indeed, "nbnbaasd<sd" is not followed by an "a".
Try this.
/.+?(?=a)/.match("nbnbaasd<sd")
(You do not actually need to use a lookahead to achieve this, but perhaps you've simplified your problem and in your real problem you do need a zero-width assertion for some reason. So this is a solution as close as possible to the one you've attempted.)
I want to transform the following text
This is a , here is another 
into
This is a , here is another 
In other words I want to find all the image paths that are enclosed between brackets (the text is in Markdown syntax) and replace them with other paths. The string containing the new path is returned by a separate real_path function.
I would like to do this using String#gsub in its block version. Currently my code looks like this:
re = /!\[.*?\]\((.*?)\)/
rel_content = content.gsub(re) do |path|
real_path(path)
end
The problem with this regex is that it will match  instead of just foto.jpeg. I also tried other regexen like (?>\!\[.*?\]\()(.*?)(?>\)) but to no avail.
My current workaround is to split the path and reassemble it later.
Is there a Ruby regex that matches only the path inside the brackets and not all the contextual required characters?
Post-answers update: The main problem here is that Ruby's regexen have no way to specify zero-width lookbehinds. The most generic solution is to group what the part of regexp before and the one after the real matching part, i.e. /(pre)(matching-part)(post)/, and reconstruct the full string afterwards.
In this case the solution would be
re = /(!\[.*?\]\()(.*?)(\))/
rel_content = content.gsub(re) do
$1 + real_path($2) + $3
end
A quick solution (adjust as necessary):
s = 'This is a '
s.sub!(/!(\[.*?\])\((.*?)\)/, '\1(/folder1/\2)' )
p s # This is a [foto](/folder1/foto.jpeg)
You can always do it in two steps - first extract the whole image expression out and then second replace the link:
str = "This is a , here is another "
str.gsub(/\!\[[^\]]*\]\(([^)]*)\)/) do |image|
image.gsub(/(?<=\()(.*)(?=\))/) do |link|
"/a/new/path/" + link
end
end
#=> "This is a , here is another "
I changed the first regex a bit, but you can use the same one you had before in its place. image is the image expression like , and link is just the path like foto.jpeg.
[EDIT] Clarification: Ruby does have lookbehinds (and they are used in my answer):
You can create lookbehinds with (?<=regex) for positive and (?<!regex) for negative, where regex is an arbitrary regex expression subject to the following condition. Regexp expressions in lookbehinds they have to be fixed width due to limitations on the regex implementation, which means that they can't include expressions with an unknown number of repetitions or alternations with different-width choices. If you try to do that, you'll get an error. (The restriction doesn't apply to lookaheads though).
In your case, the [foto] part has a variable width (foto can be any string) so it can't go into a lookbehind due to the above. However, lookbehind is exactly what we need since it's a zero-width match, and we take advantage of that in the second regex which only needs to worry about (fixed-length) compulsory open parentheses.
Obviously you can put real_path in from here, but I just wanted a test-able example.
I think that this approach is more flexible and more readable than reconstructing the string through the match group variables
In your block, use $1 to access the first capture group ($2 for the second and so on).
From the documentation:
In the block form, the current match string is passed in as a parameter, and variables such as $1, $2, $`, $&, and $' will be set appropriately. The value returned by the block will be substituted for the match on each call.
As a side note, some people think '\1' inappropriate for situations where an unconfirmed number of characters are matched. For example, if you want to match and modify the middle content, how can you protect the characters on both sides?
It's easy. Put a bracket around something else.
For example, I hope replace a-ruby-porgramming-book-531070.png to a-ruby-porgramming-book.png. Remove context between last "-" and last ".".
I can use /.*(-.*?)\./ match -531070. Now how should I replace it? Notice
everything else does not have a definite format.
The answer is to put brackets around something else, then protect them:
"a-ruby-porgramming-book-531070.png".sub(/(.*)(-.*?)\./, '\1.')
# => "a-ruby-porgramming-book.png"
If you want add something before matched content, you can use:
"a-ruby-porgramming-book-531070.png".sub(/(.*)(-.*?)\./, '\1-2019\2.')
# => "a-ruby-porgramming-book-2019-531070.png"
I have the following
address.gsub(/^\d*/, "").gsub(/\d*-?\d*$/, "").gsub(/\# ?\d*/,"")
Can this be done in one gsub? I would like to pass a list of patterns rather then just one pattern - they are all being replaced by the same thing.
You could combine them with an alternation operator (|):
address = '6 66-666 #99 11-23'
address.gsub(/^\d*|\d*-?\d*$|\# ?\d*/, "")
# " 66-666 "
address = 'pancakes 6 66-666 # pancakes #99 11-23'
address.gsub(/^\d*|\d*-?\d*$|\# ?\d*/,"")
# "pancakes 6 66-666 pancakes "
You might want to add little more whitespace cleanup. And you might want to switch to one of:
/\A\d*|\d*-?\d*\z|\# ?\d*/
/\A\d*|\d*-?\d*\Z|\# ?\d*/
depending on what your data really looks like and how you need to handle newlines.
Combining the regexes is a good idea--and relatively simple--but I'd like to recommend some additional changes. To wit:
address.gsub(/^\d+|\d+(?:-\d+)?$|\# *\d+/, "")
Of your original regexes, ^\d* and \d*-?\d*$ will always match, because they don't have to consume any characters. So you're guaranteed to perform two replacements on every line, even if that's just replacing empty strings with empty strings. Of my regexes, ^\d+ doesn't bother to match unless there's at least one digit at the beginning of the line, and \d+(?:-\d+)?$ matches what looks like an integer-or-range expression at the end of the line.
Your third regex, \# ?\d*, will match any # character, and if the # is followed by a space and some digits, it'll take those as well. Judging by your other regexes and my experience with other questions, I suspect you meant to match a # only if it's followed by one or more digits, with optional spaces intervening. That's what my third regex does.
If any of my guesses are wrong, please describe what you were trying to do, and I'll do my best to come up with the right regex. But I really don't think those first two regexes, at least, are what you want.
EDIT (in answer to the comment): When working with regexes, you should always be aware of the distinction between a regex the matches nothing and a regex that doesn't match. You say you're applying the regexes to street addresses. If an address doesn't happen to start with a house number, ^\d* will match nothing--that is, it will report a successful match, said match consisting of the empty string preceding the first character in the address.
That doesn't matter to you, you're just replacing it with another empty string anyway. But why bother doing the replacement at all? If you change the regex to ^\d+, it will report a failed match and no replacement will be performed. The result is the same either way, but the "matches noting" scenario (^\d*) results in a lot of extra work that the "doesn't match" scenario avoids. In a high-throughput situation, that could be a life-saver.
The other two regexes bring additional complications: \d*-?\d*$ could match a hyphen at the end of the string (e.g. "123-", or even "-"); and \# ?\d* could match a hash symbol anywhere in string, not just as part of an apartment/office number. You know your data, so you probably know neither of those problems will ever arise; I'm just making sure you're aware of them. My regex \d+(?:-\d+)?$ deals with the trailing-hyphen issue, and \# *\d+ at least makes sure there are digits after the hash symbol.
I think that if you combine them together in a single gsub() regex, as an alternation,
it changes the context of the starting search position.
Example, each of these lines start at the beginning of the result of the previous
regex substitution.
s/^\d*//g
s/\d*-?\d*$//g
s/\# ?\d*//g
and this
s/^\d*|\d*-?\d*$|\# ?\d*//g
resumes search/replace where the last match left off and could potentially produce a different overall output, especially since a lot of the subexpressions search for similar
if not the same characters, distinguished only by line anchors.
I think your regex's are unique enough in this case, and of course changing the order
changes the result.
I was wondering if it was possible to use negative matching on whole words, so that something like [^(<em>.*?<\/em>)] would match everything but text between (and including) <em>...</em>.
I was thinking about using negative lookahead, but I don't think this will work, as I need to check for the opening <em> as well.
Of course, I could just use the positive regex and then subtract the matches from the original text, but I'm looking for a more 'elegant' solution.
thx for any help
String#split works as negative match. It returns you an array of whatever part that does not match the regex.
'XXXXXXXX<em>YYYYYYY</em>ZZZZZZZZ'.split(%r|<em>.*?</em>|)
# => ['XXXXXXX', 'ZZZZZZZZ']
And if want it back into a string, just do join.
'XXXXXXXX<em>YYYYYYY</em>ZZZZZZZZ'.split(%r|<em>.*?</em>|).join
# => 'XXXXXXXZZZZZZZZ'
The whole thing with lookaround is that it doesn't consume any of the input. If you want to match everything but a pattern, it means that you want to match the prefix and the suffix of that pattern. To match the suffix, you probably want to consume --- and throw away -- the pattern that you don't want. But negative lookahead doesn't consume.