I am currently using this regular expression to loosely validate a DNS address:
^[A-Za-z0-9_]+(\.[A-Za-z0-9_]+)*$
Which would match things like hello.com, hello, and hello.com.com.com. I was trying to replicate it exactly as it is into a Lua pattern. I came up with the following Lua pattern:
^([%d%a_]+(%.[%d%a_]+)*)$
So that I can use the following code to validate the DNS address:
local s = "hello.com"
print(s:match("^([%d%a_]+(%.[%d%a_]+)*)$"))
For some reason this always fails, although it looks like a 1:1 copy of the regular expression.
Any ideas why?
Lua patterns are not regular expressions. You cannot translate the ^[A-Za-z0-9_]+(\.[A-Za-z0-9_]+)*$ to ^([%d%a_]+(%.[%d%a_]+)*)$, because you cannot apply quantifiers to groups in Lua (see Limitations of Lua patterns).
Judging by the ^[A-Za-z0-9_]+(\.[A-Za-z0-9_]+)*$ regex, the rules are:
String can consist of one or more alphanumeric or underscore or dot characters
String cannot start with a dot
String cannot end with a dot
String cannot contain 2 consecutive dots
You can use the following work-around:
function pattern_checker(v)
return string.match(v, '^[%d%a_.]+$') ~= nil and -- check if the string only contains digits/letters/_/., one or more
string.sub(v, 0, 1) ~= '.' and -- check if the first char is not '.'
string.sub(v, -1) ~= '.' and -- check if the last char is not '.'
string.find(v, '%.%.') == nil -- check if there are 2 consecutive dots in the string
end
See IDEONE demo:
-- good examples
print(pattern_checker("hello.com")) -- true
print(pattern_checker("hello")) -- true
print(pattern_checker("hello.com.com.com")) -- true
-- bad examples
print(pattern_checker("hello.com.")) -- false
print(pattern_checker(".hello")) -- false
print(pattern_checker("hello..com.com.com")) -- false
print(pattern_checker("%hello.com.com.com")) -- false
You can translate the pattern to ^[%w_][%w_%.]+[%w_]$, although that still allows for double dots. When using that pattern while checking for double dots, you end up with this:
function pattern_checker(v)
-- Using double "not" because we like booleans, no?
return not v:find("..",1,true) and not not v:match("^[%w_][%w_%.]+[%w_]$")
end
I used the same testcode as Wiktor Stribiżew (since it's good testcode) and it produces the same results. Mine is also 2 to 3 times faster, if that matters. (Doesn't mean I don't like Wiktor's code, his code also works. He also has a link to the limitations page, a nice touch to his answer)
(I like playing with string patterns in Lua)
Related
We can check to see if a digit is in a password, for example, by doing something like:
(?=.*\d)
Or if there's a digit and lowercase with:
(?=.*\d)(?=.*[a-z])
This will basically go on "until the end" to check whether there's a letter in the string.
However, I was wondering if it's possible in some sort of generic way to limit the scope of a lookahead. Here's a basic example which I'm hoping will demonstrate the point:
start_of_string;
middle_of_string;
end_of_string;
I want to use a single regular expression to match against start_of_string + middle_of_string + end_of_string.
Is it possible to use a lookahead/lookbehind in the middle_of_string section WITHOUT KNOWING WHAT COMES BEFORE OR AFTER IT? That is, not knowing the size or contents of the preceding/succeeding string component. And limit the scope of the lookahead to only what is contained in that portion of the string?
Let's take one example:
start_of_string = 'start'
middle_of_string = '123'
end_of_string = 'ABC'
Would it be possible to check the contents of each part but limit it's scope like this?
string = 'start123ABC'
# Check to make sure the first part has a letter, the second part has a number and the third part has a capital
((?=.*[a-z]).*) # limit scope to the first part only!!
((?=.*[0-9]).*) # limit scope to only the second part.
((?=.*[A-Z]).*) # limit scope to only the last part.
In other words, can lookaheads/lookbehinds be "chained" with other components of a regex without it screwing up the entire regex?
UPDATE:
Here would be an example, hopefully this is more helpful to the question:
START_OF_STRING = 'abc'
Does 'x' exist in it? (?=.*x) ==> False
END_OF_STRING = 'cdxoy'
Does 'y' exist in it? (?=.*y) ==> True
FULL_STRING = START_OF_STRING + END_OF_STRING
'abcdxoy'
Is it possible to chain the two regexes together in any sort of way to only wok on its 'substring' component?
For example, now (?=.*x) in the first part of the string would return True, but it should not.
`((?=.*x)(?=.*y)).*`
I think the short answer to this is "No, it's not possible.", but am looking to hear from someone who understands this to tell why it is or isn't.
In .NET and javascript you could use a positive lookahead at the start of your string component and a negative lookbehind at the end of it to "constrain" the match. Example:
.*(?=.*arrow)(?<middle>.*)(?<=.*arrow).*
helloarrowxyz
{'middle': 'arrow'}
If in pcre, python, or other you would need to either have a fixed width lookahead to constraint it from going too far forward, such as what Wiktor Stribiżew says above:
.*(?=.{0,5}arrow)(?<middle>.{0,5}).*
Otherwise, it wouldn't be possible to do without either a fixed-width lookahead or a variable width look-behind.
In have following code:
set[str] noNnoE = { v | str v <- eu, (/\b[^eEnN]*\b/ := v) };
The goal is to filter out of a set of strings (called 'eu'), those strings that have no 'e' or 'n' in them (both upper- and lowercase). The regular expression I've provided:
/\b[^eEnN]?\b/
seems to work like it should, when I try it out in an online regex-tester.
When trying it out in the Rascel terminal it doesn't seem to work:
rascal>/\b[^eEnN]*\b/ := "Slander";
bool: true
I expected no match. What am I missing here? I'm using the latest (stable) Rascal release in Eclipse Oxygen1a.
Actually, the online regex-tester is giving the same match that we are giving. You can look at the match as follows:
if (/<w1:\b[^eEnN]?\b>/ := "Slander")
println("The match is: |<w1>|");
This is assigning the matched string to w1 and then printing it between the vertical bars, assuming the match succeeds (if it doesn't, it returns false, so the body of the if will not execute). If you do this, you will get back a match to the empty string:
The match is: ||
The online regex tester says the same thing:
Match 1
Full match 0-0 ''
If you want to prevent this, you can force at least one occurrence of the characters you are looking for by using a +, versus a ?:
rascal>/\b[^eEnN]+\b/ := "Slander";
bool: false
Note that you can also make the regex match case insensitive by following it with an i, like so:
/\b[^en]+\b/i
This may make it easier to write if you need to add more characters into the character class.
This solution (/\b[^en]+\b/i) doesn't work for strings consisting of two words, such as the Czech Republic.
Try /\b[^en]+\b$/i. That seems to work for me.
I'm trying to implement a regular expression in pl/sql which excludes any results which are preceeded by a string.
data:
exclude this: 3
include this: 3
3
cvxcvxcv3
34edfgdsfg3
Using this regexp:
(?<!exclude this: )3\d{0}(\s|$)
What I would expect to be returned is:
exclude this: 3 <-- nothing
include this: 3 <- 3
3 <- 3
cvxcvxcv3 <- 3
34edfgdsfg3 <- the second 3 only
34edfgdsfg33 <- the last 3 only
This works fine when tested in notepad++ however when implementing it in pl/sql it isn't working. Looking at similar questions it appears that pl/sql doesn't support negative lookback fully but does anyone know of a similar construct or a way to work around this?
While i am not aware of any general technique to emulate negative lookbehind by means of pl/sql regexen, in your particular case a solution is possible:
([^e].{13}|[^x].{12}|[^c].{11}|[^l].{10}|[^u].{9}|[^d].{8}|[^e].{7}|[^ ].{6}|[^t].{5}|[^h].{4}|[^i].{3}|[^s].{2}|[^:].|[^ ]|^)3[^0-9]?(\s|$)
The negative lookbehind applies to a literal. Therefore all forbidden prefixes of the first character that must match are known beforehand as are their lengths. this allows for a compact (well ...) specification as a regex that must match.
Not that I would recommend that for best practice ... or any practice at all ...
Update (processing advice):
The regex as it stands identifies matches without providing any further information for postprocessing. However, you can identify the offset of the match and the length of the forbidden prefix with the following code:
DECLARE
s_data VARCHAR2(4000); -- This will contain the line you match against
s_matchpos BINARY_INTEGER; -- Offset of the 'interesting' part (digit '3' under the various constraints) in s_data
s_prefix VARCHAR2(100); -- The prefix part of the match
s_re VARCHAR2(4000); -- The regex
BEGIN
s_re := '([^e].{13}|[^x].{12}|[^c].{11}|[^l].{10}|[^u].{9}|[^d].{8}|[^e].{7}|[^ ].{6}|[^t].{5}|[^h].{4}|[^i].{3}|[^s].{2}|[^:].|[^ ]|^)3[^0-9]?(\s|$)';
s_prefix := regexp_replace( s_data, s_re, '\1', 1, 1); -- start at offset 1 of the data and find the first match
s_matchpos := regexp_instr( s_data, s_re ) + length(s_prefix);
END;
As mentioned above, not necessarily to recommend as best practice ...
I need to check an input field for a German IBAN. The user should be allowed to leave in white spaces and input should be validated to have a starting DE and then exact 20 characters numbers and letters.
Without the white space allowance, I tried
^[DE]{2}([0-9a-zA-Z]{20})$
but I cannot find where and how I can add "white spaces anywhere allowed.
This should be simple, but I simply cannot find a solution.
Thanks for help!
Because you should use the right tool for the right task: you should not rely on regexps to validate IBAN numbers, but instead use the IBAN checksum algorithm to check the whole code is actually correct, making any regexp superfluous and redundant. i.e.: remove all spaces, rearrange the code, convert to integers, and compute remainder, here it's best explained.
Though, there am I trying to answer your question, for the fun of it:
what about:
^DE([0-9a-zA-Z]\s?){20}$
which only difference is allowing a whitespace (or not) after each occurence of a alphanumeric character.
here is the visualization:
edit: for the OP's information, the only difference is that this regexp, from #ulugbex-umirov: (?:\s*[0-9a-zA-Z]\s*) does a lookahead check to see if there's a space between the iso country code and the checksum (which only made of numerical digits), which I do not support on purpose.
And actually to support a correct IBAN syntax, which is formed of groups of 4 characters, as the wikipedia page says:
^DE\d{2}\s?([0-9a-zA-Z]{4}\s?){4}[0-9a-zA-Z]{2}$
example
If your UI is in Javascript, you can use that library for doing IBAN validation:
<script src="iban.js"></script>
<script>
// the API is now accessible from the window.IBAN global object
IBAN.isValid('hello world'); // false
IBAN.isValid('BE68539007547034'); // true
</script>
so you know this is a valid IBAN, and can validate it before the data is ever even sent to the backend. Simpler, lighter and more elegant… Why do something else?
Here is a list of IBANs from 70 Countries. I generated it with a python script i wrote based on this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Bank_Account_Number
AL[a-zA-Z0-9]{2}\s?([0-9]{4}\s?){2}([a-zA-Z0-9]{4}\s?){4}\s?
AD[a-zA-Z0-9]{2}\s?([0-9]{4}\s?){2}([a-zA-Z0-9]{4}\s?){3}\s?
AT[a-zA-Z0-9]{2}\s?([0-9]{4}\s?){4}\s?
AZ[a-zA-Z0-9]{2}\s?([a-zA-Z0-9]{4}\s?){1}([0-9]{4}\s?){5}\s?
BH[a-zA-Z0-9]{2}\s?([a-zA-Z]{4}\s?){1}([a-zA-Z0-9]{4}\s?){3}([a-zA-Z0-9]{2})\s?
BY[a-zA-Z0-9]{2}\s?([a-zA-Z0-9]{4}\s?){1}([0-9]{4}\s?){5}\s?
BE[a-zA-Z0-9]{2}\s?([0-9]{4}\s?){3}\s?
BA[a-zA-Z0-9]{2}\s?([0-9]{4}\s?){4}\s?
BR[a-zA-Z0-9]{2}\s?([0-9]{4}\s?){5}([0-9]{3})([a-zA-Z]{1}\s?)([a-zA-Z0-9]{1})\s?
BG[a-zA-Z0-9]{2}\s?([a-zA-Z]{4}\s?){1}([0-9]{4}\s?){1}([0-9]{2})([a-zA-Z0-9]{2}\s?)([a-zA-Z0-9]{4}\s?){1}([a-zA-Z0-9]{2})\s?
CR[a-zA-Z0-9]{2}\s?([0-9]{4}\s?){4}([0-9]{2})\s?
HR[a-zA-Z0-9]{2}\s?([0-9]{4}\s?){4}([0-9]{1})\s?
CY[a-zA-Z0-9]{2}\s?([0-9]{4}\s?){2}([a-zA-Z0-9]{4}\s?){4}\s?
CZ[a-zA-Z0-9]{2}\s?([0-9]{4}\s?){5}\s?
DK[a-zA-Z0-9]{2}\s?([0-9]{4}\s?){3}([0-9]{2})\s?
DO[a-zA-Z0-9]{2}\s?([a-zA-Z]{4}\s?){1}([0-9]{4}\s?){5}\s?
TL[a-zA-Z0-9]{2}\s?([0-9]{4}\s?){4}([0-9]{3})\s?
EE[a-zA-Z0-9]{2}\s?([0-9]{4}\s?){4}\s?
FO[a-zA-Z0-9]{2}\s?([0-9]{4}\s?){3}([0-9]{2})\s?
FI[a-zA-Z0-9]{2}\s?([0-9]{4}\s?){3}([0-9]{2})\s?
FR[a-zA-Z0-9]{2}\s?([0-9]{4}\s?){2}([0-9]{2})([a-zA-Z0-9]{2}\s?)([a-zA-Z0-9]{4}\s?){2}([a-zA-Z0-9]{1})([0-9]{2})\s?
GE[a-zA-Z0-9]{2}\s?([a-zA-Z0-9]{2})([0-9]{2}\s?)([0-9]{4}\s?){3}([0-9]{2})\s?
DE[a-zA-Z0-9]{2}\s?([0-9]{4}\s?){4}([0-9]{2})\s?
GI[a-zA-Z0-9]{2}\s?([a-zA-Z]{4}\s?){1}([a-zA-Z0-9]{4}\s?){3}([a-zA-Z0-9]{3})\s?
GR[a-zA-Z0-9]{2}\s?([0-9]{4}\s?){1}([0-9]{3})([a-zA-Z0-9]{1}\s?)([a-zA-Z0-9]{4}\s?){3}([a-zA-Z0-9]{3})\s?
GL[a-zA-Z0-9]{2}\s?([0-9]{4}\s?){3}([0-9]{2})\s?
GT[a-zA-Z0-9]{2}\s?([a-zA-Z0-9]{4}\s?){1}([a-zA-Z0-9]{4}\s?){5}\s?
HU[a-zA-Z0-9]{2}\s?([0-9]{4}\s?){6}\s?
IS[a-zA-Z0-9]{2}\s?([0-9]{4}\s?){5}([0-9]{2})\s?
IE[a-zA-Z0-9]{2}\s?([a-zA-Z0-9]{4}\s?){1}([0-9]{4}\s?){3}([0-9]{2})\s?
IL[a-zA-Z0-9]{2}\s?([0-9]{4}\s?){4}([0-9]{3})\s?
IT[a-zA-Z0-9]{2}\s?([a-zA-Z]{1})([0-9]{3}\s?)([0-9]{4}\s?){1}([0-9]{3})([a-zA-Z0-9]{1}\s?)([a-zA-Z0-9]{4}\s?){2}([a-zA-Z0-9]{3})\s?
JO[a-zA-Z0-9]{2}\s?([a-zA-Z]{4}\s?){1}([0-9]{4}\s?){5}([0-9]{2})\s?
KZ[a-zA-Z0-9]{2}\s?([0-9]{4}\s?){3}([0-9]{1})([a-zA-Z0-9]{3}\s?)([a-zA-Z0-9]{4}\s?){2}([a-zA-Z0-9]{2})\s?
XK[a-zA-Z0-9]{2}\s?([0-9]{4}\s?){1}([0-9]{4}\s?){2}([0-9]{2})([0-9]{2}\s?)\s?
KW[a-zA-Z0-9]{2}\s?([a-zA-Z]{4}\s?){1}([a-zA-Z0-9]{4}\s?){5}([a-zA-Z0-9]{2})\s?
LV[a-zA-Z0-9]{2}\s?([a-zA-Z]{4}\s?){1}([a-zA-Z0-9]{4}\s?){3}([a-zA-Z0-9]{1})\s?
LB[a-zA-Z0-9]{2}\s?([0-9]{4}\s?){1}([a-zA-Z0-9]{4}\s?){5}\s?
LI[a-zA-Z0-9]{2}\s?([0-9]{4}\s?){1}([0-9]{1})([a-zA-Z0-9]{3}\s?)([a-zA-Z0-9]{4}\s?){2}([a-zA-Z0-9]{1})\s?
LT[a-zA-Z0-9]{2}\s?([0-9]{4}\s?){4}\s?
LU[a-zA-Z0-9]{2}\s?([0-9]{3})([a-zA-Z0-9]{1}\s?)([a-zA-Z0-9]{4}\s?){3}\s?
MK[a-zA-Z0-9]{2}\s?([0-9]{3})([a-zA-Z0-9]{1}\s?)([a-zA-Z0-9]{4}\s?){2}([a-zA-Z0-9]{1})([0-9]{2})\s?
MT[a-zA-Z0-9]{2}\s?([a-zA-Z]{4}\s?){1}([0-9]{4}\s?){1}([0-9]{1})([a-zA-Z0-9]{3}\s?)([a-zA-Z0-9]{4}\s?){3}([a-zA-Z0-9]{3})\s?
MR[a-zA-Z0-9]{2}\s?([0-9]{4}\s?){5}([0-9]{3})\s?
MU[a-zA-Z0-9]{2}\s?([a-zA-Z]{4}\s?){1}([0-9]{4}\s?){4}([0-9]{3})([a-zA-Z]{1}\s?)([a-zA-Z]{2})\s?
MC[a-zA-Z0-9]{2}\s?([0-9]{4}\s?){2}([0-9]{2})([a-zA-Z0-9]{2}\s?)([a-zA-Z0-9]{4}\s?){2}([a-zA-Z0-9]{1})([0-9]{2})\s?
MD[a-zA-Z0-9]{2}\s?([a-zA-Z0-9]{2})([a-zA-Z0-9]{2}\s?)([a-zA-Z0-9]{4}\s?){4}\s?
ME[a-zA-Z0-9]{2}\s?([0-9]{4}\s?){4}([0-9]{2})\s?
NL[a-zA-Z0-9]{2}\s?([a-zA-Z]{4}\s?){1}([0-9]{4}\s?){2}([0-9]{2})\s?
NO[a-zA-Z0-9]{2}\s?([0-9]{4}\s?){2}([0-9]{3})\s?
PK[a-zA-Z0-9]{2}\s?([a-zA-Z0-9]{4}\s?){1}([0-9]{4}\s?){4}\s?
PS[a-zA-Z0-9]{2}\s?([a-zA-Z0-9]{4}\s?){1}([0-9]{4}\s?){5}([0-9]{1})\s?
PL[a-zA-Z0-9]{2}\s?([0-9]{4}\s?){6}\s?
PT[a-zA-Z0-9]{2}\s?([0-9]{4}\s?){5}([0-9]{1})\s?
QA[a-zA-Z0-9]{2}\s?([a-zA-Z]{4}\s?){1}([a-zA-Z0-9]{4}\s?){5}([a-zA-Z0-9]{1})\s?
RO[a-zA-Z0-9]{2}\s?([a-zA-Z]{4}\s?){1}([a-zA-Z0-9]{4}\s?){4}\s?
SM[a-zA-Z0-9]{2}\s?([a-zA-Z]{1})([0-9]{3}\s?)([0-9]{4}\s?){1}([0-9]{3})([a-zA-Z0-9]{1}\s?)([a-zA-Z0-9]{4}\s?){2}([a-zA-Z0-9]{3})\s?
SA[a-zA-Z0-9]{2}\s?([0-9]{2})([a-zA-Z0-9]{2}\s?)([a-zA-Z0-9]{4}\s?){4}\s?
RS[a-zA-Z0-9]{2}\s?([0-9]{4}\s?){4}([0-9]{2})\s?
SK[a-zA-Z0-9]{2}\s?([0-9]{4}\s?){5}\s?
SI[a-zA-Z0-9]{2}\s?([0-9]{4}\s?){3}([0-9]{3})\s?
ES[a-zA-Z0-9]{2}\s?([0-9]{4}\s?){5}\s?
SE[a-zA-Z0-9]{2}\s?([0-9]{4}\s?){5}\s?
CH[a-zA-Z0-9]{2}\s?([0-9]{4}\s?){1}([0-9]{1})([a-zA-Z0-9]{3}\s?)([a-zA-Z0-9]{4}\s?){2}([a-zA-Z0-9]{1})\s?
TN[a-zA-Z0-9]{2}\s?([0-9]{4}\s?){5}\s?
TR[a-zA-Z0-9]{2}\s?([0-9]{4}\s?){1}([0-9]{1})([a-zA-Z0-9]{3}\s?)([a-zA-Z0-9]{4}\s?){3}([a-zA-Z0-9]{2})\s?
AE[a-zA-Z0-9]{2}\s?([0-9]{3})([0-9]{1}\s?)([0-9]{4}\s?){3}([0-9]{3})\s?
GB[a-zA-Z0-9]{2}\s?([a-zA-Z]{4}\s?){1}([0-9]{4}\s?){3}([0-9]{2})\s?
VA[a-zA-Z0-9]{2}\s?([0-9]{3})([0-9]{1}\s?)([0-9]{4}\s?){3}([0-9]{2})\s?
VG[a-zA-Z0-9]{2}\s?([a-zA-Z0-9]{4}\s?){1}([0-9]{4}\s?){4}\s?
Original:
^[DE]{2}([0-9a-zA-Z]{20})$
Debuggex Demo
Modified:
^DE(?:\s*[0-9a-zA-Z]\s*){20}$
Debuggex Demo
This is the correct regex to match DE IBAN account numbers:
DE\d{2}[ ]\d{4}[ ]\d{4}[ ]\d{4}[ ]\d{4}[ ]\d{2}|DE\d{20}
Pass: DE89 3704 0044 0532 0130 00|||DE89370400440532013000
Fail: DE89-3704-0044-0532-0130-00
Most simple solution I can think of:
^DE(\s*[[:alnum:]]){20}\s*$
In particular, your initial [DE]{2} is wrong, as it allows 'DD', 'EE', 'ED' as well as the intended 'DE'.
To allow any amount of spaces anywhere:
^ *D *E( *[A-Za-z0-9]){20} *$
As you want to allow lower letters, also DE might be lower?
^ *[Dd] *[Ee]( *[A-Za-z0-9]){20} *$
^ matches the start of the string
$ end anchor
in between each characters there are optional spaces *
[character class] defines a set/range of characters
To allow at most one space in between each characters, replace the quantifier * (any amount of) with ? (0 or 1). If supported, \s shorthand can be used to match [ \t\r\n\f] instead of space only.
Test on regex101.com, also see the SO regex FAQ
Using Google Apps Script, I pasted Laurent's code from github into a script and added the following code to test.
// Use the Apps Script IDE's "Run" menu to execute this code.
// Then look at the View > Logs menu to see execution results.
function myFunction() {
//https://github.com/arhs/iban.js/blob/master/README.md
// var IBAN = require('iban');
var t1 = IBAN.isValid('hello world'); // false
var t2 = IBAN.isValid('BE68539007547034'); // true
var t3 = IBAN.isValid('BE68 5390 0754 7034'); // true
Logger.log("Test 1 = %s", t1);
Logger.log("Test 2 = %s", t2);
Logger.log("Test 3 = %s", t3);
}
The only thing needed to run the example code was commenting out the require('iban') line:
// var IBAN = require('iban');
Finally, instead of using client handlers to attempt a RegEx validation of IBAN input, I use a a server handler to do the validation.
Is it possible to write a regular expression that matches all strings that does not only contain numbers? If we have these strings:
abc
a4c
4bc
ab4
123
It should match the four first, but not the last one. I have tried fiddling around in RegexBuddy with lookaheads and stuff, but I can't seem to figure it out.
(?!^\d+$)^.+$
This says lookahead for lines that do not contain all digits and match the entire line.
Unless I am missing something, I think the most concise regex is...
/\D/
...or in other words, is there a not-digit in the string?
jjnguy had it correct (if slightly redundant) in an earlier revision.
.*?[^0-9].*
#Chad, your regex,
\b.*[a-zA-Z]+.*\b
should probably allow for non letters (eg, punctuation) even though Svish's examples didn't include one. Svish's primary requirement was: not all be digits.
\b.*[^0-9]+.*\b
Then, you don't need the + in there since all you need is to guarantee 1 non-digit is in there (more might be in there as covered by the .* on the ends).
\b.*[^0-9].*\b
Next, you can do away with the \b on either end since these are unnecessary constraints (invoking reference to alphanum and _).
.*[^0-9].*
Finally, note that this last regex shows that the problem can be solved with just the basics, those basics which have existed for decades (eg, no need for the look-ahead feature). In English, the question was logically equivalent to simply asking that 1 counter-example character be found within a string.
We can test this regex in a browser by copying the following into the location bar, replacing the string "6576576i7567" with whatever you want to test.
javascript:alert(new String("6576576i7567").match(".*[^0-9].*"));
/^\d*[a-z][a-z\d]*$/
Or, case insensitive version:
/^\d*[a-z][a-z\d]*$/i
May be a digit at the beginning, then at least one letter, then letters or digits
Try this:
/^.*\D+.*$/
It returns true if there is any simbol, that is not a number. Works fine with all languages.
Since you said "match", not just validate, the following regex will match correctly
\b.*[a-zA-Z]+.*\b
Passing Tests:
abc
a4c
4bc
ab4
1b1
11b
b11
Failing Tests:
123
if you are trying to match worlds that have at least one letter but they are formed by numbers and letters (or just letters), this is what I have used:
(\d*[a-zA-Z]+\d*)+
If we want to restrict valid characters so that string can be made from a limited set of characters, try this:
(?!^\d+$)^[a-zA-Z0-9_-]{3,}$
or
(?!^\d+$)^[\w-]{3,}$
/\w+/:
Matches any letter, number or underscore. any word character
.*[^0-9]{1,}.*
Works fine for us.
We want to use the used answer, but it's not working within YANG model.
And the one I provided here is easy to understand and it's clear:
start and end could be any chars, but, but there must be at least one NON NUMERICAL characters, which is greatest.
I am using /^[0-9]*$/gm in my JavaScript code to see if string is only numbers. If yes then it should fail otherwise it will return the string.
Below is working code snippet with test cases:
function isValidURL(string) {
var res = string.match(/^[0-9]*$/gm);
if (res == null)
return string;
else
return "fail";
};
var testCase1 = "abc";
console.log(isValidURL(testCase1)); // abc
var testCase2 = "a4c";
console.log(isValidURL(testCase2)); // a4c
var testCase3 = "4bc";
console.log(isValidURL(testCase3)); // 4bc
var testCase4 = "ab4";
console.log(isValidURL(testCase4)); // ab4
var testCase5 = "123"; // fail here
console.log(isValidURL(testCase5));
I had to do something similar in MySQL and the following whilst over simplified seems to have worked for me:
where fieldname regexp ^[a-zA-Z0-9]+$
and fieldname NOT REGEXP ^[0-9]+$
This shows all fields that are alphabetical and alphanumeric but any fields that are just numeric are hidden. This seems to work.
example:
name1 - Displayed
name - Displayed
name2 - Displayed
name3 - Displayed
name4 - Displayed
n4ame - Displayed
324234234 - Not Displayed