We Keep Coding

Match custom pattern in regex multiple times

I am trying to parse a query which I need to modify to replace a specific property and its value with another property and different values. I am struggling to write a regex that will match the specify property and its value that I need.
Here are some examples to illustrate my point. test:property is the property name that we need to match.
Property with a single value: test:property:schema:Person
Property with multiple values (there is no limit on how many values there can be - this example uses 3): test:property:(schema:Person OR schema:Organization OR schema:Place)
Property with a single value in brackets: test:property:(schema:Person)
Property with another property in the query string (i.e. there are other parts of the string that I'm not interested in): test:property:schema:Person test:otherProperty:anotherValue
Also note that other combinations are possible such as other properties being before the property I need to capture, my property having multiple values with another property present in the query.
I want to match on the entire test:property section with each value captured within that match. Given the examples above these are the results I am looking for:
#
Match
Groups
1
test:property:schema:Person
schema:Person
2
test:property:(schema:Person OR schema:Organization OR schema:Place)
schema:Personschema:Organizationschema:Person
3
test:property:(schema:Person)
schema:Person
4
test:property:schema:Person
schema:Person
Note: #1 and #4 produce the same output. I wanted to illustrate that the rest of the string should be ignored (I only need to change the test:property key and value).
The pattern of schema:Person is defined as \w+\:\w+, i.e. one or more word characters, followed by a colon, followed by one or more word characters.
If we define the known parts of the string with names I think I can express what I want to match.
schema:Person - <TypeName> - note that the first part, schema in this case, is not fixed and can be different
test:property - <MatchProperty>
<MatchProperty>: // property name (which is known and the same - in the examples this is `test:property`) followed by a colon
( // optional open bracket
<TypeName>
(OR <TypeName>)* // optional additional TypeNames separated by an OR
) // optional close bracket
Every example I've found has had simple alphanumeric characters in the repeating section but my repeating pattern contains the colon which seems to be tripping me up. The closest I've got is this:
(test\:property:(?:\(([\w+\:\w+]+ [OR [\w+\:\w+]+)\))|[\w+\:\w+]+)
Which works okayish when there are no other properties (although the match for example #2 contains the entire property and value as the first group result, and a second group with the property value) but goes crazy when other properties are included.
Also, putting that regex through https://regex101.com/ I know it's not right as the backslash characters in the square brackets are being matched exactly. I started to have a go with capturing and non-capturing groups but got as far as this before giving up!
(?:(\w+\:\w+))(?:(\sOR\s))*(?:(\w+\:\w+))*

This isn't a complete solution if you want pure regex because there are some limitations to regex and Java regex in particular, but the regexes I came up with seem to work.
If you're looking to match the entire sequence, the following regex will work.
test:property:(?:\((\w+:\w+)(?:\sOR\s(\w+:\w+))*\)|(\w+:\w+))
Unfortunately, the repeated capture groups will only capture the last match, so in queries with multiple values (like example 2), groups 1 and 2 will be the first and last values (schema:Person and schema:Place). In queries without parentheses, the value will be in group 3.
If you know the maximum number of values, you could just generate a massive regex that will have enough groups, but this might not be ideal depending on your application.
The other regex to find values in groups of arbitrary length uses regex's positive lookbehind to match valid values. You can then generate an array of matches.
(?<=test:property:(?:(?:\((?:\w+:\w+\sOR\s)+)|\(?))\w+:\w+
The issue with this method is that it looks like Java lookbehind has some limitations, specifically, not allowing unbound or complex quantifiers. I'm not a Java person so I haven't tried things out for myself, but it seems like this wouldn't work either. If someone else has another solution, please post another answer!
With this in mind, I would probably suggest going with a combination regex + string parsing method. You can use regex to parse out the value or multiple values (separated by OR), then split the string to get your final values.
To match the entire part inside parentheses or the single value no parentheses, you can use this regex:
test:property:(?:\((\w+:\w+(?:\sOR\s\w+:\w+)*)\)|(\w+:\w+))
It's still split into two groups where one matches values with parentheses and the other matches values without (to avoid matching unpaired parentheses), but it should be usable.
If you want to play around with these regexes or learn more, here's a regexr: https://regexr.com/65kma

Regex expression for comma and dash seperated text of items

I do have a Java Web Application, where I get some inputs from the user. Once I got this input I have to parse it and the parsing part depends on what kind of input I'll get. I decided to use the Pattern class of java for some of predefined user inputs.
So I need the last 2 regex patterns:
a)Enumaration:
input can be - A03,B24.1,A25.7
The simple way would be to check if there are a comma in there ([^,]+) but it will end up with a lot of updates in to parsing function, which I would like to avoid. So, in addition to comma it should check if it starts with
letter
minimum 3 letters (combined with numbers)
can have one dot in the word
minimum 1 comma (updated it)
b) Mixed
input can be A03,B24.1-B35.5,A25.7
So all of what Enumuration part got, but with addition that it can have a dash minimum one.
I've tried to use multiple online regex generators but didnt get it correct. Would be much appreciated if you can help.
Here is what I got if its B24.1-B35.5 if its just a simple range.
"='.{1}\\d{0,2}-.{1}\\d{0,2}'|='.{1}\\d{1,2}.\\d{1,2}-.{1}\\d{1,2}.\\d{1,2}'";
Edit1: Valid and Invalid inputs
for a)Enumaration
A03,B24.1,A25.7 Valid
A03,B24.1 Valid
A03,B24.1-B25.1 -Invalid because in this case (enumaration) it should not contain dash
A03 invalid because no comma
A03,B24.1 - Valid
A03 Invalid
for b)Mixed
everything that a enumeration has with addition that it can have dash too.

You can use this regex for (a) Enumeration part as per your rules:
[A-Za-z][A-Za-z0-9]{2,}(?:\.[A-Za-z0-9]{1,})?(?:,[A-Za-z][A-Za-z0-9]{2,}(?:\.[A-Za-z0-9]{1,})?)+
Rules:
Verifies that each segment starts with a letter
Minimum of three letters or numbers [A-Za-z][A-Za-z0-9]{2,}
Optionally followed by decimal . and one or more alphabets and numbers i.e (?:\.[A-Za-z0-9]{1,})?
Same thing repeated, and seperated by a comma ,. Also must have atleast one comma so using + i.e (?:,[A-Za-z][A-Za-z0-9]{2,}(?:\.[A-Za-z0-9]{1,})?)+
?: to indicate non-capturing group
Using [A-Za-z0-9] instead of \w to avoid underscores
Regex101 Demo
For (b) Mixed, you haven't shared too many valid and invalid cases, but based on my current understanding here's what I have:
[A-Za-z][A-Za-z0-9]{2,}(?:\.[A-Za-z0-9]{1,})?(?:[,-][A-Za-z][A-Za-z0-9]{2,}(?:\.[A-Za-z0-9]{1,})?)+
Note that , from previous regex has been replaced with [,-] to allow - as well!
Regex101 Demo
// Will match
A03,B24.1-B35.5,A25.7
A03,B24.1,A25.7
A03,B24.1-B25.1
Hope this helps!
EDIT: Making sure each group starts with a letter (and not a number)
Thanks to #diginoise and #anubhava for pointing out! Changed [A-Za-z0-9]{3,} to [A-Za-z][A-Za-z0-9]{2,}

As I said in the comments, I would chop the input by commas and verify each segment separately. Your domain ICD 10 CM codes is very well defined and also I would be very wary of any input which could be non valid, yet pass the validation.
Here is my solution:
regex
([A-TV-Z][0-9][A-Z0-9](\.?[A-Z0-9]{0,4})?)
... however I would avoid that.
Since your domain is (moste likely) medical software, people's lives (or at least well being) is at stake. Not to mention astronomical damages and the lawyers ever-chasing ambulances. Therefore avoid the easy solution, and implement the bomb proof one.
You could use the regex to establish that given code is definitely not valid. However if a code passes your regex it does not mean that it is valid.
bomb proof method
See this example: O09.7, O09.70, O09.71, O09.72, O09.73 are valid entries, but O09.1 is not valid.
Therefore just get all possible codes. According to this gist there are 42784 different codes. Just load them to memory and any code which is not in the set, is not valid. You could compress said list and be clever about the encoding in memory, to occupy less space, but verbatim all codes are under 300kB on disk, so few MBs max in memory, therefore not a massive cost to pay for a price of people not having left instead of right kidney removed.

Regex to validate words do not contain numbers or special characters

I am developing a java app, running on android. I am trying to pick all words which do not contain any embedded digits or symbols.
The best I have come up with is:
\b[a-zA-Z]+[a-zA-Z]*+\b
Test Data:
this is a test , an0ther gr8 WW##ee one, w1n 1test test1 end
This results in picking the following: this, is, a, test, WW##ee, one, end
I need to eliminate the WW##ee from the results.

You shouldn't use a word boundary meta-character \b since it matches the position right after WW which sees a hash # character. This position is a word boundary itself. So you should pick up a different way:
(?<![\S&&[^,]])[a-zA-Z]+(?![\S&&[^,]])
Using character class intersection feature of Java's regex you are able to define punctuation characters that are allowed to follow or precede a word character. Here it is a comma ,.

You could use look behind and look ahead to check there is no #.
\b(?<!\#)[a-zA-Z]+(?!\#)\b

My solution has evolved a bit as I have gotten additional help with this. So, this is now my best solution but still a bit lacking. I have not been able to accept "as-is" while rejecting "-this-" and a similar case of accept "and/or" while rejecting "/slash/". Also for simplicity I have made the input data single word per line.
^(?:[\p{P}\p{S}])?((?:[\p{L}\p{Pd}'])+)(?:[\p{P}\p{S}])$
as-is is picked valid
-this- is valid but I wish it weren't
and/or is not valid but I wish it would be picked
/slash/ "slash" is picked valid
(test) "test" is picked valid
[test] "test" is picked valid
<test> "test" is picked valid

Combining (OR) arbitrary regular expressions

tl;dr Is there a way to OR/combine arbitrary regexes into a single regex (for matching, not capturing) in Java?
In my application I receive two lists from the user:
list of regular expressions
list of strings
and I need to output a list of the strings in (2) that were not matched by any of the regular expressions in (1).
I have the obvious naive implementation in place (iterate over all strings in (2); for each string iterate over all patterns in (1); if no pattern match the string add it to the list that will be returned) but I was wondering if it was possible to combine all patterns into a single one and let the regex compiler exploit optimization opportunities.
The obvious way to OR-combine regexes is obviously (regex1)|(regex2)|(regex3)|...|(regexN) but I'm pretty sure this is not the correct thing to do considering that I have no control over the individual regexes (e.g. they could contain all manners of back/forward references). I was therefore wondering if you can suggest a better way to combine arbitrary regexes in java.
note: it's only implied by the above, but I'll make it explicit: I'm only matching against the string - I don't need to use the output of the capturing groups.

Some regex engines (e.g. PCRE) have the construct (?|...). It's like a non-capturing group, but has the nice feature that in every alternation groups are counted from the same initial value. This would probably immediately solve your problem. So if switching the language for this task is an option for you, that should do the trick.
[edit: In fact, it will still cause problems with clashing named capturing groups. In fact, the pattern won't even compile, since group names cannot be reused.]
Otherwise you will have to manipulate the input patterns. hyde suggested renumbering the backreferences, but I think there is a simpler option: making all groups named groups. You can assure yourself that the names are unique.
So basically, for every input pattern you create a unique identifier (e.g. increment an ID). Then the trickiest part is finding capturing groups in the pattern. You won't be able to do this with a regex. You will have to parse the pattern yourself. Here are some thoughts on what to look out for if you are simply iterating through the pattern string:
Take note when you enter and leave a character class, because inside character classes parentheses are literal characters.
Maybe the trickiest part: ignore all opening parentheses that are followed by ?:, ?=, ?!, ?<=, ?<!, ?>. In addition there are the option setting parentheses: (?idmsuxU-idmsuxU) or (?idmsux-idmsux:somePatternHere) which also capture nothing (of course there could be any subset of those options and they could be in any order - the - is also optional).
Now you should be left only with opening parentheses that are either a normal capturing group or a named on: (?<name>. The easiest thing might be to treat them all the same - that is, having both a number and a name (where the name equals the number if it was not set). Then you rewrite all of those with something like (?<uniqueIdentifier-md5hashOfName> (the hyphen cannot be actually part of the name, you will just have your incremented number followed by the hash - since the hash is of fixed length there won't be any duplicates; pretty much at least). Make sure to remember which number and name the group originally had.
Whenever you encounter a backslash there are three options:
The next character is a number. You have a numbered backreference. Replace all those numbers with k<name> where name is the new group name you generated for the group.
The next characters are k<...>. Again replace this with the corresponding new name.
The next character is anything else. Skip it. That handles escaping of parentheses and escaping of backslashes at the same time.
I think Java might allow forward references. In that case you need two passes. Take care of renaming all groups first. Then change all the references.
Once you have done this on every input pattern, you can safely combine all of them with |. Any other feature than backreferences should not cause problems with this approach. At least not as long as your patterns are valid. Of course, if you have inputs a(b and c)d then you have a problem. But you will have that always if you don't check that the patterns can be compiled on their own.
I hope this gave you a pointer in the right direction.

Regex for checking > 1 upper, lower, digit, and special char

^.(?=.{15,})(?=.\d)(?=.[a-z])(?=.[A-Z])(?=.[!##$%^&+=]).*$
This is the regex I am currently using which will evaluate on 1 of each: upper,lower,digit, and specials of my choosing. The question I have is how do I make it check for 2 of each of these? Also I ask because it is seemingly difficult to write a test case for this as I do not know if it is only evaluating the first set of criteria that it needs. This is for a password, however the requirement is that it needs to be in regex form based on the package we are utilizing.
EDIT
Well as it stands in my haste to validate the expression I forgot to validate my string length. Thanks to Ken and Gumbo on helping me with this.
This is the code I am executing:
I do apologize as regex is not my area.
The password I am using is the following string "$$QiouWER1245", the behavior I am experiencing at the moment is that it randomly chooses to pass or fail. Any thoughts on this?
Pattern pattern = Pattern.compile(regEx);
Matcher match = pattern.matcher(password);
while(match.find()){
System.out.println(match.group());
}
From what I see if it evaluates to true it will throw the value in password back to me else it is an empty string.

Personally, I think a password policy that forces use of all three character classes is not very helpful. You can get the same degree of randomness by letting people make longer passwords. Users will tend to get frustrated and write passwords down if they have to abide by too many password rules (which make the passwords too difficult to remember). I recommend counting bits of entropy and making sure they're greater than 60 (usually requires a 10-14 character password). Entropy per character would depend roughly on the number of characters, the range of character sets they use, and maybe how often they switch between character sets (I would guess that passwords like HEYthere are more predictable than heYThEre).
Another note: do you plan not to count the symbols to the right of the keyboard (period, comma, angle brackets, etc.)?
If you still have to find groups of two characters, why not just repeat each pattern? For example, make (?=.\d) into (?=.\d.*\d).
For your test cases, if you are worried that it would only check the first criteria, then write a test case that makes sure each of the following passwords fails (because one and only one of the criteria is not met in each case): Just for fun I reversed the order of expectation of each character set, though it probably won't make a difference unless someone removes/forgets the ?= at some future date.
!##TESTwithoutnumbers
TESTwithoutsymbols123
&*(testwithoutuppercase456
+_^TESTWITHOUTLOWERCASE3498
I should point out that technically none of these passwords should be acceptable because they use dictionary words, which have about 2 bits of entropy per character instead of something more like 6. However, I realize that it's difficult to write a (maintainable and efficient) regular expression to check for dictionary words.

Try this:
"^(?=(?:\\D*\\d){2})(?=(?:[^a-z]*[a-z]){2})(?=(?:[^A-Z]*[A-Z]){2})(?=(?:[^!##$%^&*+=]*[!##$%^&*+=]){2}).{15,}$"
Here non-capturing groups (?:…) are used to group the conditions and repeat them. I’ve also used the complements of each character class for optimization instead of the universal ..

If I understand your question correctly, you want at least 15 characters, and to require at least 2 uppercase characters, at least 2 lowercase characters, at least 2 digits, and at least 2 special characters. In that case you could it like this:
^.*(?=.{15,})(?=.*\d.*\d)(?=.*[a-z].*[a-z])(?=.*[A-Z].*[A-Z])(?=.*[!##$%^&*+=].*[!##$%^&*+=]).*$
BTW, your original regex had an extra backslash before the \d

I'm not sure that one big regex is the right way to go here. It already looks far too complicated and will be very difficult to change in the future.
My suggestion is to structure the code in the following way:
check that the string has 2 lower case characters
return failure if not found or continue
check that the string has 2 upper case characters
return failure if not found or continue
etc.
This will also allow you to pass out a return code or errors string specifying why the password was not accepted and the code will be much simpler.