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"
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 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 am getting completely different reults from string.scan and several regex testers...
I am just trying to grab the domain from the string, it is the last word.
The regex in question:
/([a-zA-Z0-9\-]*\.)*\w{1,4}$/
The string (1 single line, verified in Ruby's runtime btw)
str = 'Show more results from software.informer.com'
Work fine, but in ruby....
irb(main):050:0> str.scan /([a-zA-Z0-9\-]*\.)*\w{1,4}$/
=> [["informer."]]
I would think that I would get a match on software.informer.com ,which is my goal.
Your regex is correct, the result has to do with the way String#scan behaves. From the official documentation:
"If the pattern contains groups, each individual result is itself an array containing one entry per group."
Basically, if you put parentheses around the whole regex, the first element of each array in your results will be what you expect.
It does not look as if you expect more than one result (especially as the regex is anchored). In that case there is no reason to use scan.
'Show more results from software.informer.com'[ /([a-zA-Z0-9\-]*\.)*\w{1,4}$/ ]
#=> "software.informer.com"
If you do need to use scan (in which case you obviously need to remove the anchor), you can use (?:) to create non-capturing groups.
'foo.bar.baz lala software.informer.com'.scan( /(?:[a-zA-Z0-9\-]*\.)*\w{1,4}/ )
#=> ["foo.bar.baz", "lala", "software.informer.com"]
You are getting a match on software.informer.com. Check the value of $&. The return of scan is an array of the captured groups. Add capturing parentheses around the suffix, and you'll get the .com as part of the return value from scan as well.
The regex testers and Ruby are not disagreeing about the fundamental issue (the regex itself). Rather, their interfaces are differing in what they are emphasizing. When you run scan in irb, the first thing you'll see is the return value from scan (an Array of the captured subpatterns), which is not the same thing as the matched text. Regex testers are most likely oriented toward displaying the matched text.
How about doing this :
/([a-zA-Z0-9\-]*\.*\w{1,4})$/
This returns
informer.com
On your test string.
http://rubular.com/regexes/13670
I would like to replace only the group in parenthesis in this expression :
my_string.gsub(/<--MARKER_START-->(.)*<--MARKER_END-->/, 'replace_text')
so that I get : <--MARKER_START-->replace_text<--MARKER_END-->
I know I could repeat the whole MARKER_START and MARKER_END blocks in the substitution expression but I thought there should be a more simple way to do this.
You can do it with zero width look-ahead and look-behind assertions.
This regex should work in ruby 1.9 and in perl and many other places:
Note: ruby 1.8 only supports look-ahead assertions. You need both look-ahead and look-behind to do this properly.
s.gsub( /(?<=<--MARKER START-->).*?(?=<--MARKER END-->)/, 'replacement text' )
What happens in ruby 1.8 is the ?<= causes it to crash because it doesn't understand the look-behind assertion. For that part, you then have to fall back to using a backreference - like Greig Hewgill mentions
so what you get is
s.gsub( /(<--MARKER START-->).*?(?=<--MARKER END-->)/, '\1replacement text' )
EXPLANATION THE FIRST:
I've replaced the (.)* in the middle of your regex with .*? - this is non-greedy.
If you don't have non-greedy, then your regex will try and match as much as it can - if you have 2 markers on one line, it goes wrong. This is best illustrated by example:
"<b>One</b> Two <b>Three</b>".gsub( /<b>.*<\/b>/, 'BOLD' )
=> "BOLD"
What we actually want:
"<b>One</b> Two <b>Three</b>".gsub( /<b>.*?<\/b>/, 'BOLD' )
=> "BOLD Two BOLD"
EXPLANATION THE SECOND:
zero-width-look-ahead-assertion sounds like a giant pile of nerdly confusion.
What "look-ahead-assertion" actually means is "Only match, if the thing we are looking for, is followed by this other stuff.
For example, only match a digit, if it is followed by an F.
"123F" =~ /\d(?=F)/ # will match the 3, but not the 1 or the 2
What "zero width" actually means is "consider the 'followed by' in our search, but don't count it as part of the match when doing replacement or grouping or things like that.
Using the same example of 123F, If we didn't use the lookahead assertion, and instead just do this:
"123F" =~ /\dF/ # will match 3F, because F is considered part of the match
As you can see, this is ideal for checking for our <--MARKER END-->, but what we need for the <--MARKER START--> is the ability to say "Only match, if the thing we are looking for FOLLOWS this other stuff". That's called a look-behind assertion, which ruby 1.8 doesn't have for some strange reason..
Hope that makes sense :-)
PS: Why use lookahead assertions instead of just backreferences? If you use lookahead, you're not actually replacing the <--MARKER--> bits, only the contents. If you use backreferences, you are replacing the whole lot. I don't know if this incurs much of a performance hit, but from a programming point of view it seems like the right thing to do, as we don't actually want to be replacing the markers at all.
You could do something like this:
my_string.gsub(/(<--MARKER_START-->)(.*)(<--MARKER_END-->)/, '\1replace_text\3')