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
Related
I am using ruby 2.1, but the same thing can be replicated on rubular site.
If this is my string:
儘管中國婦幼衛生監測辦公室制定的
And I do a regex match with this expression:
(中國婦幼衛生監測辦公室制定|管中)
I am expecting to get the longer token as a match.
中國婦幼衛生監測辦公室制定
Instead I get the second alternation as a match.
As far as I know it does work like that when not in chinese characters.
If this is my string:
foobar
And I use this regex:
(foobar|foo)
Returned matching result is foobar. If the order is in the other way, than the matching string is foo. That makes sense to me.
Your assumption that regex matches a longer alternation is incorrect.
If you have a bit of time, let's look at how your regex works...
Quick refresher: How regex works: The state machine always reads from left to right, backtracking where necessary.
There are two pointers, one on the Pattern:
(cdefghijkl|bcd)
The other on your String:
abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvw
The pointer on the String moves from the left. As soon as it can return, it will:
(source: gyazo.com)
Let's turn that into a more "sequential" sequence for understanding:
(source: gyazo.com)
Your foobar example is a different topic. As I mentioned in this post:
How regex works: The state machine always reads from left to right. ,|,, == ,, as it always will only be matched to the first alternation.
That's good, Unihedron, but how do I force it to the first alternation?
Look!*
^(?:.*?\Kcdefghijkl|.*?\Kbcd)
Here have a regex demo.
This regex first attempts to match the entire string with the first alternation. Only if it fails completely will it then attempt to match the second alternation. \K is used here to keep the match with the contents behind the construct \K.
*: \K was supported in Ruby since 2.0.0.
Read more:
The Stack Overflow Regex Reference
On greedy vs non-greedy
Ah, I was bored, so I optimized the regex:
^(?:(?:(?!cdefghijkl)c?[^c]*)++\Kcdefghijkl|(?:(?!bcd)b?[^b]*)++\Kbcd)
You can see a demo here.
I'm trying to come up with a regex that will elegantly match everything in an URL AFTER the domain name, and before the first ?, the last slash, or the end of the URL, if neither of the 2 exist.
This is what I came up with but it seems to be failing in some cases:
regex = /[http|https]:\/\/.+?\/(.+)[?|\/|]$/
In summary:
http://nytimes.com/2013/07/31/a-new-health-care-approach-dont-hide-the-price/ should return
2013/07/31/a-new-health-care-approach-dont-hide-the-price
http://nytimes.com/2013/07/31/a-new-health-care-approach-dont-hide-the-price?id=2 should return
2013/07/31/a-new-health-care-approach-dont-hide-the-price
http://nytimes.com/2013/07/31/a-new-health-care-approach-dont-hide-the-price should return
2013/07/31/a-new-health-care-approach-dont-hide-the-price
Please don't use Regex for this. Use the URI library:
require 'uri'
str_you_want = URI("http://nytimes.com/2013/07/31/a-new-health-care-approach-dont-hide-the-price").path
Why?
See everything about this famous question for a good discussion of why these kinds of things are a bad idea.
Also, this XKCD really says why:
In short, Regexes are an incredibly powerful tools, but when you're dealing with things that are made from hundred page convoluted standards when there is already a library for doing it faster, easier, and more correctly, why reinvent this wheel?
If lookaheads are allowed
((2[0-9][0-9][0-9].*)(?=\?\w+)|(2[0-9][0-9][0-9].*)(?=/\s+)|(2[0-9][0-9][0-9].*).*\w)
Copy + Paste this in http://regexpal.com/
See here with ruby regex tester: http://rubular.com/r/uoLLvTwkaz
Image using javascript regex, but it works out the same
(?=) is just a a lookahead
I basically set up three matches from 2XXX up to (in this order):
(?=\?\w+) # lookahead for a question mark followed by one or more word characters
(?=/\s+) # lookahead for a slash followed by one or more whitespace characters
.*\w # match up to the last word character
I'm pretty sure that some parentheses were not needed but I just copy pasted.
There are essentially two OR | expressions in the (A|B|C) expression. The order matters since it's like a (ifthen|elseif|else) type deal.
You can probably fix out the prefix, I just assumed that you wanted 2XXX where X is a digit to match.
Also, save the pitchforks everyone, regular expressions are not always the best but it's there for you when you need it.
Also, there is xkcd (https://xkcd.com/208/) for everything:
I want to be able to match all the following cases below using Ruby 1.8.7.
/pages/multiedit/16801,16809,16817,16825,16833
/pages/multiedit/16801,16809,16817
/pages/multiedit/16801
/pages/multiedit/1,3,5,7,8,9,10,46
I currently have:
\/pages\/multiedit\/\d*
This matches upto the first set of numbers. So for example:
"/pages/multiedit/16801,16809,16817,16825,16833"[/\/pages\/multiedit\/\d*/]
# => "/pages/multiedit/16801"
See http://rubular.com/r/ruFPx5yIAF for example.
Thanks for the help, regex gods.
\/pages\/multiedit\/\d+(?:,\d+)*
Example: http://rubular.com/r/0nhpgki6Gy
Edit: Updated to not capture anything... Although the performance hit would be negligible. (Thanks Tin Man)
The currently accepted answer of
\/pages\/multiedit\/[\d,]+
may not be a good idea because that will also match the following strings
.../pages/multiedit/,,,
.../pages/multiedit/,1,
My answer requires there be at least one digit before the first comma, and at least one digit between commas, and it must end with a digit.
I'd use:
/\/pages\/multiedit\/[\d,]+/
Here's a demonstration of the pattern at http://rubular.com/r/h7VLZS1W1q
[\d,]+ means "find one or more numbers or commas"
The reason \d* doesn't work is it means "find zero or more numbers". As soon as the pattern search runs into a comma it stops. You have to tell the engine that it's OK to find numbers and commas.
I'm trying to match some text if it does not have another block of text in its vicinity. For example, I would like to match "bar" if "foo" does not precede it. I can match "bar" if "foo" does not immediately precede it using negative look behind in this regex:
/(?<!foo)bar/
but I also like to not match "foo 12345 bar". I tried:
/(?<!foo.{1,10})bar/
but using a wildcard + a range appears to be an invalid regex in Ruby. Am I thinking about the problem wrong?
You are thinking about it the right way. But unfortunately lookbehinds usually have be of fixed-length. The only major exception to that is .NET's regex engine, which allows repetition quantifiers inside lookbehinds. But since you only need a negative lookbehind and not a lookahead, too. There is a hack for you. Reverse the string, then try to match:
/rab(?!.{0,10}oof)/
Then reverse the result of the match or subtract the matching position from the string's length, if that's what you are after.
Now from the regex you have given, I suppose that this was only a simplified version of what you actually need. Of course, if bar is a complex pattern itself, some more thought needs to go into how to reverse it correctly.
Note that if your pattern required both variable-length lookbehinds and lookaheads, you would have a harder time solving this. Also, in your case, it would be possible to deconstruct your lookbehind into multiple variable length ones (because you use neither + nor *):
/(?<!foo)(?<!foo.)(?<!foo.{2})(?<!foo.{3})(?<!foo.{4})(?<!foo.{5})(?<!foo.{6})(?<!foo.{7})(?<!foo.{8})(?<!foo.{9})(?<!foo.{10})bar/
But that's not all that nice, is it?
As m.buettner already mentions, lookbehind in Ruby regex has to be of fixed length, and is described so in the document. So, you cannot put a quantifier within a lookbehind.
You don't need to check all in one step. Try doing multiple steps of regex matches to get what you want. Assuming that existence of foo in front of a single instance of bar breaks the condition regardless of whether there is another bar, then
string.match(/bar/) and !string.match(/foo.*bar/)
will give you what you want for the example.
If you rather want the match to succeed with bar foo bar, then you can do this
string.scan(/foo|bar/).first == "bar"
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.