Here is my regex as I have inputted it into my java file.
String myRegex = "(?<=[^a-zA-Z0-9])(target)(?=[^a-zA-Z0-9])";
If I have a string as follows:
.target. - it works.
However, if I have a string that JUST says target it does not work. How can I modify the regex so that if there is nothing at the start or the end of the string, it still matches?
EDIT - Examples.
_target - Should succeed!
target_ - Should succeed!
target - Should succeed!
Currently these examples fail with the current regex.
Add "start of input" to your look behind and add "end of input" to your look ahead using a regex alternation (ie | which is a logical "or"):
String myRegex = "(?<=^|[^a-zA-Z0-9])target(?=[^a-zA-Z0-9]|$)";
The problem with your regex is that your look behind required there to be a preceding character that was not a letter/digit.
These look arounds also match start/end of input.
See live demo.
The problem is, there are two negatives happening here. My lookbehinds are can be negative, and my character classes can be negatives. Currently, my lookbehinds are positive and my character classes are negatives. So it's saying: "Look behind and make sure you find something that is not within these classes". So when you there is nothing there, it won't find it and will fail. The solution was to make my look behind negative and make the character classes positive. So now it's saying "Look behind and sure there ISN'T any of these characters". So if it is empty, it won't fail because it meets the condition.
This is the final regex:
String myRegex = "(?<![a-zA-Z0-9])target(?![a-zA-Z0-9])";
If I'm understanding your question correctly, instead of using the look ahead and look behind, you can just use the ? to indicate that there should be 0 or 1 non-alphabetical or numerical character before and after "target".
([^a-zA-Z0-9])?(target)([^a-zA-Z0-9])?
You should be able to match target using the * 0 or more quantifier to match any target which have 0 or more occurrences of the characters you want. So:
[_]*(target)[_]*
should match:
_target
target
target_
_target_
Add any element you want to be matched before or after the word to the brackets. Example to match .target. too:
[\._]*(target)[\._]*
This will match target substring no matter what part of the string it is. If you want to make the rule only for match at the start of the string then add the ^ anchor to it like:
^[\._]*(target)[\._]*
and will match the ones mentioned above only if they start the string.
Related
Assume I have the following string.
create or replace package test as
-- begin null; end;/
end;
/
I want a regular expression that will find the semicolon not preceded by a set of "--" double dashes on the same line. I'm using the following pattern "(?!--.*);" and I'm still getting matches for the two semicolons on the 2nd line.
I feel like I'm missing something about negative look aheads but I can't figure out what.
If you want to match semicolons only on the lines which do not start with --, this regex should do the trick:
^(?!--).*(;)
Example
I only made a few changes from your regex:
Multi-line mode, so we can use ^ and $ and search by line
^ at the beginning to indicate start of a line
.* between the negative lookahead and the semicolon, because otherwise with the first change it would try to match something like ^;, which is wrong
(I also added parentheses around the semicolon so the demo page displays the result more clearly, but this is not necessary and you can change to whatever is most convenient for your program.)
First of all, what you need is a negative lookbehind (?<!) and not a negative lookahead (?!) since you want to check what's behind your potential match.
Even with that, you won't be able to use the negative lookbehind in your case since the Java's regex engine does not support variable length lookbehind. This means that you need to know exactly how many characters to look behind your potential match for it to work.
With that said, wouldn't be simpler in your case to just split your String by linefeed/carriage return and then remove the line that start with "--"?
The reason "(?!--.*);" isn't working is because the negative look ahead is asserting that when positioned before a ; that the next two chars are --, which of course matches every time (; is always not --).
In java, to match a ; that doesn't have -- anywhere before it:
"\\G(((?<!--)[^;])*);"
To see this in action using a replaceAll() call:
String s = "foo; -- begin null; end;";
s = s.replaceAll("\\G(((?<!--)[^;])*);", "$1!");
System.out.println(s);
Output:
foo! -- begin null; end;
Showing that only semi colons before a double dash are matched.
when I tried this regex
\"(\S\S+)\"(?!;c)
on this string "MM:";d it comes as matched as I wanted
and on this string "MM:";c it comes as not matched as desired.
But when I add a second group, by moving the semicolon inside that group and making it optional using |
\"(\S\S+)\"(;|)(?!c)
for this string "MM:";c it comes as matched when I expected it to not like before.
I tried this on Java and then on Javascript using Regex tool debuggex:
This link contains a snippet of the above
What am I doing wrong?
note the | is so it is not necessary to have a semicolon.Also in the examples I put c, it is just a substitute in the example for a word, that's why I am using negative lookahead.
After following Holgers response of using Possessive Quantifiers,
\"(\S\S+)\";?+(?!c)
it worked, here is a link to it on RegexPlanet
I believe that the regex will do what it can to find a match; since your expression said the semicolon could be optional, it found that it could match the entire expression (since if the semicolon is not consumed by the first group, it becomes a "no-match" for the negative lookahead. This has to do with the recursive way that regex works: it keeps trying to find a match...
In other words, the process goes like this:
MM:" - matched
(;|) - try semicolon? matched
(?!c) - oops - negative lookahead fails. No match. Go back
(;|) - try nothing. We still have ';c' left to match
(?!c) - negative lookahead not matched. We have a match
An update (based on your comment). The following code may work better:
\"(\S\S+)\"(;|)((?!c)|(?!;c))
Debuggex Demo
The problem is that you don’t want to make the semicolon optional in the sense of regular expression. An optional semicolon implies that the matcher is allowed to try both, matching with or without it. So even if the semicolon is there the matcher can ignore it creating an empty match for the group letting the lookahead succeed.
But you want to consume the semicolon if it’s there, so it is not allowed to be used to satisfy the negative look-ahead. With Java’s regex engine that’s pretty easy: use ;?+
This is called a “possessive quantifier”. Like with the ? the semicolon doesn’t need to be there but if it’s there it must match and cannot be ignored. So the regex engine has no alternatives any more.
So the entire pattern looks like \"(\S\S+)\";?+(?!c) or \"(\S\S+)\"(;?+)(?!c) if you need the semicolon in a group.
I'm trying to create a regular expression to parse a 5 digit number out of a string no matter where it is but I can't seem to figure out how to get the beginning and end cases.
I've used the pattern as follows \\d{5} but this will grab a subset of a larger number...however when I try to do something like \\D\\d{5}\\D it doesn't work for the end cases. I would appreciate any help here! Thanks!
For a few examples (55555 is what should be extracted):
At the beginning of the string
"55555blahblahblah123456677788"
In the middle of the string
"2345blahblah:55555blahblah"
At the end of the string
"1234567890blahblahblah55555"
Since you are using a language that supports them use negative lookarounds:
"(?<!\\d)\\d{5}(?!\\d)"
These will assert that your \\d{5} is neither preceded nor followed by a digit. Whether that is due to the edge of the string or a non-digit character does not matter.
Note that these assertions themselves are zero-width matches. So those characters will not actually be included in the match. That is why they are called lookbehind and lookahead. They just check what is there, without actually making it part of the match. This is another disadvantage of using \\D, which would include the non-digit character in your match (or require you to use capturing groups).
I am trying to have the following regx rule, but couldn't find solution.
I am sorry if I didn't make it clear. I want for each rule different regx. I am using Java.
rule should fail for all digit inputs start with prefix '1900' or '1901'.
(190011 - fail, 190111 - fail, 41900 - success...)
rule should success for all digit inputs with the prefix '*'
different regex for each rule (I am not looking for the combination of both of them together)
Is this RE fitting the purpose ? :
'\A(\*|(?!190[01])).*'
\A means 'the beginning of string' . I think it's the same in Java's regexes
.
EDIT
\A : "from the very beginning of the string ....". In Python (which is what I know, in fact) this can be omitted if we use the function match() that always analyzes from the very beginning, instead of search() that search everywhere in a string. If you want the regex able to analyze lines from the very beginning of each line, this must be replaced by ^
(...|...) : ".... there must be one of the two following options : ....."
\* : "...the first option is one character only, a star; ..." . As a star is special character meaning 'zero, one or more times what is before' in regex's strings, it must be escaped to strictly mean 'a star' only.
(?!190[01]) : "... the second option isn't a pattern that must be found and possibly catched but a pattern that must be absent (still after the very beginning). ...". The two characters ?! are what says 'there must not be the following characters'. The pattern not to be found is 4 integer characters long, '1900' or '1901' .
(?!.......) is a negative lookahead assertion. All kinds of assertion begins with (? : the parenthese invalidates the habitual meaning of ? , that's why all assertions are always written with parentheses.
If \* have matched, one character have been consumed. On the contrary, if the assertion is verified, the corresponding 4 first characters of the string haven't been consumed: the regex motor has gone through the analysed string until the 4th character to verify them, and then it has come back to its initial position, that is to say, presently, at the very beginning of the string.
If you want the bi-optional part (...|...) not to be a capturing group, you will write ?: just after the first paren, then '\A(?:\*|(?!190[01])).*'
.* : After the beginning pattern (one star catched/matched, or an assertion verified) the regex motor goes and catch all the characters until the end of the line. If the string has newlines and you want the regex to catch all the characters until the end of the string, and not only of a line, you will specify that . must match the newlines too (in Python it is with re.MULTILINE), or you will replace .* with (.|\r|\n)*
I finally understand that you apparently want to catch strings composed of digits characters. If so the RE must be changed to '\A(?:\*|(?!190[01]))\d*' . This RE matches with empty strings. If you want no-match with empty strings, put \d+ in place of \d* . If you want that only strings with at least one digit, even after the star when it begins with a star, match, then do '\A(?:\*|(?!190[01]))(?=\d)\d*'
For the first rule, you should use a combo regex with two captures, one to capture the 1900/1901-prefixed case, and one the capture the rest. Then you can decide whether the string should succeed or fail by examining the two captures:
(190[01]\d+)|(\d+)
Or just a simple 190[01]\d+ and negate your logic.
Regex's are not really very good at excluding something.
You may exclude a prefix using negative look-behind, but it won't work in this case because the prefix is itself a stream of digits.
You seem to be trying to exclude 1-900/901 phone numbers in the US. If the number of digits is definite, you can use a negative look-behind to exclude this prefix while matching the remaining exact number digits.
For the second rule, simply:
\*\d+
I'm no expert in regex but I need to parse some input I have no control over, and make sure I filter away any strings that don't have A-z and/or 0-9.
When I run this,
Pattern p = Pattern.compile("^[a-zA-Z0-9]*$"); //fixed typo
if(!p.matcher(gottenData).matches())
System.out.println(someData); //someData contains gottenData
certain spaces + an unknown symbol somehow slip through the filter (gottenData is the red rectangle):
In case you're wondering, it DOES also display Text, it's not all like that.
For now, I don't mind the [?] as long as it also contains some string along with it.
Please help.
[EDIT] as far as I can tell from the (very large) input, the [?]'s are either white spaces either nothing at all; maybe there's some sort of encoding issue, also perhaps something to do with #text nodes (input is xml)
The * quantifier matches "zero or more", which means it will match a string that does not contain any of the characters in your class. Try the + quantifier, which means "One or more": ^[a-zA-Z0-9]+$ will match strings made up of alphanumeric characters only. ^.*[a-zA-Z0-9]+.*$ will match any string containing one or more alphanumeric characters, although the leading .* will make it much slower. If you use Matcher.lookingAt() instead of Matcher.matches, it will not require a full string match and you can use the regex [a-zA-Z0-9]+.
You have an error in your regex: instead of [a-zA-z0-9]* it should be [a-zA-Z0-9]*.
You don't need ^ and $ around the regex.
Matcher.matches() always matches the complete string.
String gottenData = "a ";
Pattern p = Pattern.compile("[a-zA-z0-9]*");
if (!p.matcher(gottenData).matches())
System.out.println("doesn't match.");
this prints "doesn't match."
The correct answer is a combination of the above answers. First I imagine your intended character match is [a-zA-Z0-9]. Note that A-z isn't as bad as you might think it include all characters in the ASCII range between A and z, which is the letters plus a few extra (specifically [,\,],^,_,`).
A second potential problem as Martin mentioned is you may need to put in the start and end qualifiers, if you want the string to only consists of letters and numbers.
Finally you use the * operator which means 0 or more, therefore you can match 0 characters and matches will return true, so effectively your pattern will match any input. What you need is the + quantifier. So I will submit the pattern you are most likely looking for is:
^[a-zA-Z0-9]+$
You have to change the regexp to "^[a-zA-Z0-9]*$" to ensure that you are matching the entire string
Looks like it should be "a-zA-Z0-9", not "a-zA-z0-9", try correcting that...
Did anyone consider adding space to the regex [a-zA-Z0-9 ]*. this should match any normal text with chars, number and spaces. If you want quotes and other special chars add them to the regex too.
You can quickly test your regex at http://www.regexplanet.com/simple/
You can check input value is contained string and numbers? by using regex ^[a-zA-Z0-9]*$
if your value just contained numberString than its show match i.e, riz99, riz99z
else it will show not match i.e, 99z., riz99.z, riz99.9
Example code:
if(e.target.value.match('^[a-zA-Z0-9]*$')){
console.log('match')
}
else{
console.log('not match')
}
}
online working example