We have come across on validation for which we have following rules,
First character should always be "0" or "+46" or "0046"
Should be of length between 8 - 20 (including + if have)
And block following number,
(0900x, +46900x, 0046900x).
(0939x, +46939x, 0046939x).
(0944x, +46944x, 0046944x).
(099x, +4699x, 00469x).
Can you help me to create regular expression, I tried creating and testing it on https://regex101.com/ but it pretty hard for me to create it.
I guess the simplest way would be
^(?:0|\+46|0046)(?:900|939|944|99)
It starts by checking for country code or preceding 0 and then the 4 combinations of area code.
Check it out here at regex101.
Edit
If you want numbers not matching your rules, you can try the same with a negative look-ahead:
^(?!(?:0|\+46|0046)(?:900|939|944|99)).*
See this one here.
or without negative look-ahead:
^(?:[^0+]|0[^09]|\+[^4]|\+4[^6]|(?:\+46[^9])|(?:0046[^9])).*$
and this one here.
Edit 2
OK, here we go again ;)
This turned out to be a tough one. But here we go:
^(?=.{8,20}$)(?>\+46|0046|0(?!0))(?!900|939|944|99)\+?\d*
Add a positive look-ahead in the beginning to assert the length is correct
use a atomic group to match the country code - not allowing another double zero 00
Negativ look-ahead to disallow toll numbers.
Also changed so it only allows digits (and the optional + in the beginning).
See this one here.
Related
The first thing I tried to do, is get the regex matching what I DON'T want. This way, I could just flip it to NOT accept that same input. This is where I came up with the first part of this regex.
Accept all 9 digit numbers, where all 9 digits are identical (without dashes): "^(\d)\1{8}$". This expression works as expected (as seen here: (https://regex101.com/r/Ez8YC3/1)).
The second expression should do the same, with dashes formatted as follows xxx-xx-xxxx: "^(\d)\1{8}$". This expressions works as expected (as seen here: https://regex101.com/r/bodzIX/1).
Now what I want to do at this point, is combine them together to look for BOTH conditions. However when I do that it seems to break, and only match 9 digit numbers that are identical throughout WITH dashes: "^(\d)\1{2}-(\d)\1{1}-(\d)\1{3}$|^(\d)\1{8}$". This can be seen here: https://regex101.com/r/lPnksf/1.
I may be getting a little ahead of myself here, but in order to show my work as much as possible, I also tried flipping those regex separately, which also did not work as expected.
Condition #1 flipped: "^(?!(\d)\1{8})$". Can be seen here: https://regex101.com/r/ed51yk/1.
Condition #2 flipped: "^(?!(\d)\1{2}-(\d)\1{1}-(\d)\1{3})$". Can be seen here: https://regex101.com/r/UYfoMK/1.
I would expect the two expressions (when flipped) to match any 9 digit number (with or without dashes) where all numbers are not identical. How ever this does not happen at all.
This is the final regex that I came up with, which is clearly not doing what I would expect it to: "^(?!(\d)\1{2}-(\d)\1{1}-(\d)\1{3})$|^(?!(\d)\1{8})$". Can be seen here: https://regex101.com/r/9eHhF5/1
At the end of the day, I want to combine these 2 expressions, with this one (that already works as intended): "^(?!000|666|9\d\d)\d{3}-(?!00)\d\d-(?!0000)\d\d\d\d$". Can be seen here: https://regex101.com/r/AdRI8i/1.
I am still pretty new to regex, and really want to understand why I can't simply wrap the condition in (?!...) in order to match the opposite condition.
Thank you in advance
What you want to do is not flip, but reverse the regex logic.
Yes, to reverse the pattern logic, you should use a negative lookahead, but there are caveats.
First, the $ end of string anchor: if it was at the end of the "positive" regex, it must also be moved to the lookahead in the reverse pattern. So, your ^(?!(\d)\1{8})$ regex must be written as ^(?!(\d)\1{8}$). Same goes for your second regex.
Next, mind that each subsequent capturing group gets an incremented ID number, so you cannot keep the same backreferences when you "join" patterns with OR | operator. You must adjust these IDs to reflect their new values in the new regex.
So, you want to match a string that matches ^(?!000|666|9\d\d)\d{3}-(?!00)\d\d-(?!0000)\d\d\d\d$ first (let's note \d\d\d\d = \d{4}), then you can add restrictions with lookaheads:
(?!(\d)\1{8}$) - fails the match if, immediately from the current position, it matches identical 9 digits and then the string end comes
(?!(\d)\2\2-(\d)\2-(\d)\2{3}$) - (note the ID incrementing continuation) fails the match if, immediately from the current position, it matches identical to the first one 3 digits, -, identical 2 digits, -, identical 5 digits, and then the string end comes.
So, to follow your logic, you can use
^(?!(\d)\1{8}$)(?!(\d)\2\2-(\d)\2-(\d)\2{3}$)(?!000|666|9\d\d)\d{3}-(?!00)\d\d-(?!0000)\d{4}$
See the regex demo
As the lookaheads are non-consuming patterns, i.e. the regex index remains at the same position after matching their pattern sequences where it was before, the 3 lookaheads will all be tried at the start of the string (see the ^ anchor). If any of the three negative lookaheads at the start fails, the whole string match will be failed right away.
By this Regex you match what you dont want as social security number:
^(?:(\d)\1{8})|(?:(\d)\2{2}-\2{2}-\2{4})$
Demo
By this regex you match only what you want:
^(?!(?:(\d)\1{8})|(?:(\d)\2{2}-\2{2}-\2{4})).*$
Demo
I am trying to generate a regular expression that will match any numbers within the range of 99 and 9999999. I have trouble understanding how generating number ranges generally works. I managed to find a range generator online that does the job for me, but I want to understand how it actually works.
My attempt to do this range is as follows:
(99|[1-9][0-9][0-9]|[1-9][0-9][0-9][0-9])
This is supposed to match 99, any 3 digit number or any 4 digit number, but it does not work as expected. When tested it matches only numbers 99 and 3 digit numbers. Four digit numbers are not matched at all. If I only write the part for 4 digit numbers on its own as
[1-9][0-9][0-9][0-9]
It matches 4 digit numbers, but when I construct it as in the first example it does not work. Can someone give me some clarification how this actually works and how successfully to generate a regular expression for the range of 99 to 9999999.
Link to demo - Here
So you want to know how this works...
Regexs have no real understanding of the values of numbers in your string, it only cares how they are represented, which is why looking for numbers in a range seems more awkward than it should be. The only reason your regex engine can understand a range in a character class like [0-9] at all is because of the characters' positions in a list (a character range like [&-~] is just as valid, and equally understandable to it.)
So, to match a range like 99-9999999, ya gotta spell out what that looks like: literal "99", or three digits without a leading zero, or four digits without a leading zero, and so on.
But this is what your demo did, right? And it didn't work. Of your test string "9293" your regex only matched "929". What happened here is the regex engine is eager to return a complete match - as soon as it found one it returned it, even though a better/longer match might have occurred later.
Here's how that match happened. (I'll skip some details like grouping, as they're not super relevant here.)
Step 1.
The engine compares the first token in the regex with the first character in the string
(99|[1-9][0-9][0-9]|[1-9][0-9][0-9][0-9])
9293 ✅
Success, they match.
Step 2.
The engine then advances both to the next token in the regex and the next character in the string and compares them.
(99|[1-9][0-9][0-9]|[1-9][0-9][0-9][0-9])
9293 ❌
Failure, no match. The engine would stop and return the failure here, but you're using alternation via |, so it knows there's an alternate expression to try.
Step 3.
The engine advances to the first token of the next alternate expression in the regex, and rewinds the position in the string.
(99|[1-9][0-9][0-9]|[1-9][0-9][0-9][0-9])
9293 ✅
Success, they match.
Step 4.
Continuing on.
(99|[1-9][0-9][0-9]|[1-9][0-9][0-9][0-9])
9293 ✅
Match.
Step 5.
And again.
(99|[1-9][0-9][0-9]|[1-9][0-9][0-9][0-9])
9293 ✅
Success. The complete expression matches. There's no need to try the remaining alternate. The match here returned is:
929
As you've probably figured out, if your input string was instead "9923" then step 2 would've matched and the engine there would've stopped and returned "99".
As you've also probably figured out, if you rearrange your alternate expressions from longest to shortest
([1-9][0-9][0-9][0-9]|[1-9][0-9][0-9]|99)
the longest would be attempted first, which would match and return your expected "9293".
Simplifying
It's still pretty wordy though, especially as you crank up the number of digits in your range. There are a couple things you can do to simplify it.
The character class [0-9] can be represented by the shorthand character class \d.
([1-9]\d\d\d|[1-9]\d\d|99)
And instead of repeating them use a quantifier in curly brackets like so:
([1-9]\d{3}|[1-9]\d{2}|99)
As it happens, quantifiers can also take the form of {min, max}, so you can combine the two similar alternates:
([1-9]\d{2,3}|99)
You might expect this to land you back returning "929" again, the engine being eager and all, but quantifiers are by default greedy so they'll try to pick up as much as they can. This lends itself well to your larger desired range:
([1-9]\d{2,6}|99)
Finishing up
What you do with it from here depends on what you need the regex to do. As it stands the parentheses are superfluous, there's no point in creating a capturing group of the entire regex itself. However a decision comes when you've got an input string like:
You will likely be eaten by 1000 grue.
If you're trying to pluck out how many grue are about to eat you, you might use
[1-9]\d{2,6}|99
which will return 1000.
However that sorta runs back into the original problem with your demo. If it's "12345678 grue", which is out of range, this'll match "1234567" which might not be what you want. You can make sure the number you've matched isn't immediately followed by (or preceded by) another digit by using negative lookarounds.
(?<!\d)([1-9]\d{2,6}|99)(?!\d)
(?<!\d) means "from this position, the prior character is not a digit" while (?!\d) means "from this position, the next character is not a digit."
The parentheses around the alternates are back as they're necessary for grouping here, otherwise the lookbehind would only be part of and apply in the first alternate expression and the lookahead would only be part of and apply in the second alternate.
On the other hand if you're trying to make sure the entire string only consists of a number in your range you'll want to instead use the anchors ^ and $ (start of string and end of string, respectively):
^([1-9]\d{2,6}|99)$
And finally you can trade the capturing group out for a non-capturing group (?:...), so:
^(?:[1-9]\d{2,6}|99)$
or
(?<!\d)(?:[1-9]\d{2,6}|99)(?!\d)
You'll still grab the number as the match, it just won't be repeated in a group capture. (Lookarounds are already non-capturing, no need to worry about those.)
First of all you need some string boundaries for you regex (anything except digit, in my example I use ^ and $ -- begging and end of line or string)
Try this one:
^([1-9][0-9]{2,6}|99)$
I have one regex which works fine for upto 1000 records. But when it comes more than that it shows stack overflow error. I'm using this regex in java code. (eclipse)
Here is my regex:
X00(X01((P00){1}(T00){1,99}){1,9999}H00)V99
The data is going to come in single line record with specific number of occurrences.
Here is an example of data
X00X01P00T00T00T00P00T00T00T00T00T00H00V99
Max limit of specific word is mentioned in regex and of whole group occurrence as well (1, 9999}. And within in one group P00 is going to be occur one time and T00 is upto 99 times and this group itself can be repeated itself can be repeated upto 9999 times. I hope its clear now..
What can be done in this regex to match long data coming into this pattern mentioned in above regex... upto 10000 records?
As you want a record to match the pattern as a whole, you should add the start-of-string (^) and end-of-string ($) anchors in your regular expression. This way you avoid that matching attempts are made at other positions in a line, which you would not want to match that way anyway.
Depending on whether you parse all records in one go, you may need to specify the multiline modifier: m.
Secondly, the large number in {1,9999} may cause difficulty for some regex parsers. There is not much you can do about that, if indeed that poses a problem, as it has to do with the size of the compiled regular expression. In that case you could try with a negative look-ahead to see you don't have more than 9999 occurrences, and when that passes, then just do a + (i.e. "one or more"), but it suffers from the same problem on reg101.com (too large expression):
^X00((?!(?:.*?P){10000})X01((P00)(?!(?:T00){100})(T00)+)+H00)V99$
If the numbers 99 and 9999 were not really strict limits, then you could take out those negative look-aheads ( (?! .... ) ): that would really be a time-saver.
Explanation of the (?! ... )
The meaning of (?!(?:.*?P){10000})
(?!: start a negative look-ahead: this does not "eat" any characters, but looks ahead.
(?:: start of a non-capturing group. Similar to normal parentheses, but you cannot back-reference them.
.*?P: any characters up to a "P".
{10000}: count that many occurrences, which practically means: see if you can find 10000 "P" in the string: if so, the look-ahead succeeds, but since it is a negative look-ahead, the match will fail, which is the purpose.
We currently have a content compliance in place where by we monitor anything that contains a credit card number with no spaces (e.g 5100080000000000)
What we need is for a reg ex to pick up credit card numbers that are entered with spaces every 4 digits (eg: 5100 0800 0000 0000)
We've been looking at alternate reg exs but have not yet found one that works for both scenarios mentioned above.
The current reg ex we use is below
^((4\d{3})|(5[1-5]\d{2})|(6011)|(34\d{1})|(37\d{1}))-?\d{4}-?\d{4}-?\d{4}|3[4,7][\d\s-]{15}$
Just add optional /s? in where you already have the optional -?
So your regex becomes
^((4\d{3})|(5[1-5]\d{2})|(6011)|(34\d{1})|(37\d{1}))-?\s?\d{4}-?\s?\d{4}-?\s?\d{4}|3[4,7][\d\s-]{15}$
It seems that you already accept a dash every four characters. Thus you can simply replace -? with [- ]? everywhere.
If you require the dashes or spaces to be consistent - that is, allow no grouping at all, or a dash every four characters, or a space every four characters, you can use a back reference to force the repetitions to be identical to the first match:
^(?:4\d{3}|5[1-5]\d{2}|6011|3[47]\d{2})([- ]?)\d{4}\1\d{4}\1\d{4}$
You will notice I removed the final 3[4,7]... which looked like an erroneous addition, apparently made when attempting to solve this problem partially. Also I changed the parentheses to non-grouping ones (?:...) or simply removed them where no grouping seemed necessary or useful, mainly because this makes it easier to see what the backreference \1 refers to. Finally, the 34.. and 37.. patterns had \d{1} where apparently \d{2} was intended (or if those particular series are only three digits before the first dash, the repetition {1} was just superfluous, but then the 3[4,7]... part would have been even more wrong!)
Won't all these ideas blow up on you as soon as someone uses and AMEX card and enters 3 or 5 numbers instead of 4 in any one 'block'
((\d+) *(\d+) *(\d+) *(\d+))
That would be the general idea (and it even works!), you can polish it if you want. There is a great page to test your regexp live - http://rubular.com/
Try this:
(\d{4} *\d{4} *\d{4} *\d{4})
so basically I want to detect if in these strings:
Hello 123 My 222 dear 112 troll 12 8889
192.1.1.254:10000
the numbers are in a format like this:
[0 to 255][ANYTHING][0 to 255][ANYTHING][0 to 255][ANYTHING][0 to 255][ANYTHING][0 to 65536]
Does anyone know how I can build such a regex?
It is for detecting if anyone posts an IP:Port in unusual format to bypass default ip:port filters.
Edit: As for the first comment: I do not know regex and what I have tried is:
if(regex_match("192.168 najlepszy serwer SAMP!!1 1 join1!! 8080","/^[0-2](*)?[0-5](*)?[0-5](*).(*)[0-2](*)?[0-5](*)?[0-5](*).(*)[0-2](*)?[0-5](*)?[0-5](*).(*)[0-2](*)?[0-5](*)?[0-5](*)?$/"))
{
print("Cannot send message");
}
else
{
print("New message for everyone! :)");
}
and some other not working regexes.
If you don't want to complicate your life checking the exact ranges, the simple regex would be:
/^.*(\d)+.+(\d)+.+(\d)+.+(\d)+.+(\d)+.*$/
The first four (\d)+ parts can be replaced with more complicated check for 0-255 range:
(25[0-5]|2[0-4][0-9]|[01]?[0-9][0-9]?)
the last (\d)+ replace with next for port range check:
(6553[0-5]|655[0-2]\d|65[0-4]\d\d|6[0-4]\d\d\d|[1-5]\d\d\d\d|[1-9]\d{0,3})
An exact, simple, and direct representation of your pattern as a regular expression is not possible in the general case. The reason are the number ranges. Something like "at this place any integral number with a value from a to b" is just to complex. A regular expression is executed by a finite state machine and these (theoretical) beasts are (basically) only able to look at strings character by character. Therefore you can match something like "ignore all characters until you find the first digit, then check whether the first digit is followed by at most two more digits".
As a workaround you may try to build a list of alternations of possible digit patterns that covers your desired range of values (in the extreme case list every single value like \b(?:1|2|3|4|...|154|155|...|255)\b). I have a pattern for the range 0-255, but I have none for the range of possible port numbers. So a first approximation may be (really, this is only an approximation and not thoroughly tested):
\b(?:[0-9]|[1-9][0-9]|1[0-9][0-9]|2[0-4][0-9]|25[0-5])\b.*\b(?:[0-9]|[1-9][0-9]|1[0-9][0-9]|2[0-4][0-9]|25[0-5])\b.*\b(?:[0-9]|[1-9][0-9]|1[0-9][0-9]|2[0-4][0-9]|25[0-5])\b.*\b(?:[0-9]|[1-9][0-9]|1[0-9][0-9]|2[0-4][0-9]|25[0-5])\b[^0-9]*[0-9]{1,5}
In the above pattern (?: .... ) means a shy group (not remembered for back references) and \b means word boundary.
I'd suggest you read up on Regex syntax. For starters . is special and matches any character. Also doing something like [0-2][0-5][0-5] won't catch something like 192 as 9 is not within 0-5.
According to your requirements here's a Regex that should roughly do what you want
([0-2]?\d{1,2}).*([0-2]?\d{1,2}).*([0-2]?\d{1,2}).*([0-2]?\d{1,2}).*(\d{1,5})?
Each of the ([0-2]?\d{1,2}) portions will match 1 or 2 digits preceded optionally with a 0,1, or 2. Each () will capture a group which you can then examine using a Regex engine. You will need to examine this group as the Regex for each of those portions will match numbers above 255 (specifically 256-299).
The last group (\d{1,5})? is to catch the port number, again you will have to examine this as it will catch any 1 to 5 digit number (hence the {1,5}). The ? makes the group optional, remove it if you want it to have to match against a port number.
As far as doing Regex in C, I haven't had much experience but there should be a way to get all the grouped matches and inspect them. Unfortunately they will be strings so you will have to convert them to integers to examine them.
Are you sure you need regex for this? In my opinion, you do not need regex for this.
Just split numbers into groups which are seperated by non-numeric characters. Then analyze.
What language?
As for actually looking for valid range, take a look at this;
http://www.regular-expressions.info/numericranges.html
I would do this simple regex
((\d|\D)+)*