I am creating a primitive experimental templating engine completely based on sed (merely for my private enjoyment). One thing I have been trying to achieve for several hours now is to replace certain text patterns with the output of a command they contain.
To clearify, if an input line looks like this
Lorem {{echo ipsum}}
I would look the sed output to look like this:
Lorem ipsum
The closest I have come is this:
echo 'Lorem {{echo ipsum}}' | sed 's/{{\(.*\)}}/'"$(\\1)"'/g'
which does not work.
However,
echo 'Lorem {{echo ipsum}}' | sed 's/{{\(.*\)}}/'"$(echo \\1)"'/g'
gives me
Lorem echo ipsum
I don't quite understand what is happening here. Why can I give the backreference to the echo command, but cannot evaluate the entire backreference in $()? When is \\1 getting evaluated? Is the thing I am trying to achieve even possible with pure sed?
Keep in mind that it is entirely clear to me that what I am trying to achieve is easily possible with other tools. However, I am highly interested in whether this is possible with pure sed.
Thanks!
The reason your attempt doesn't work is that $() is expanded by the shell before sed is even called. For this reason it can't use the backreferences sed is eventually going to capture.
It is possible to do this sort of thing with GNU sed (not with POSIX sed). The main trick is that GNU sed has a e flag to the s command that makes it replace the pattern space (the whole space) with the result of the pattern space executed as a shell command. What this means is that
echo 'echo foo' | sed 's/f/g/e'
prints goo.
This can be used for your use case as follows:
echo 'Lorem {{echo ipsum}}' | sed ':a /\(.*\){{\(.*\)}}\(.*\)/ { h; s//\1\n\3/; x; s//\2/e; G; s/\(.*\)\n\(.*\)\n\(.*\)/\2\1\3/; ba }'
The sed code works as follows:
:a # jump label for looping, in case there are
# several {{}} expressions in a line
/\(.*\){{\(.*\)}}\(.*\)/ { # if there is a {{}} expression,
h # make a copy of the line
s//\1\n\3/ # isolate the surrounding parts
x # swap the original back in
s//\2/e # isolate the command, execute, get output
G # get the outer parts we put into the hold
# buffer
s/\(.*\)\n\(.*\)\n\(.*\)/\2\1\3/ # rearrange the parts to put the command
# output into the right place
ba # rinse, repeat until all {{}} are covered
}
This makes use of sed's greedy matching in the regexes to always capture the last {{}} expression in a line. Note that it will have difficulties if there are several commands in a line and one of the later ones has multi-line output. Handling this case will require the definition of a marker that the commands embedded in the data are not allowed to have as part of their output and that the templates are not allowed to contain. I would suggest something like {{{}}}, which would lead to
sed ':a /\(.*\){{\(.*\)}}\(.*\)/ { h; s//{{{}}}\1{{{}}}\3/; x; s//\2/e; G; s/\(.*\)\n{{{}}}\(.*\){{{}}}\(.*\)/\2\1\3/; ba }'
The reasoning behind this is that the template engine would run into trouble anyway if the embedded commands printed further {{}} terms. This convention is impossible to enforce, but then any code you pass into this template engine had better come from a trusted source, anyway.
Mind you, I am not sure that this whole thing is a sane idea1. You're not planning to use it in any sort of production code, are you?
1I am, however, quite sure whether it is a sane idea.
Related
I have a script written in bash, with one particular grep command I need to modify.
Generally I have two patterns: A & B. There is a textfile that can contain lines with all possible combinations of those patterns, that is:
"xxxAxxx", "xxxBxxx", "xxxAxxxBxxx", "xxxxxx", where "x" are any characters.
I need to match ALL lines APART FROM the ones containing ONLY "A".
At the moment, it is done with "grep -v (A)", but this is a false track, as this would exclude also lines with "xxxAxxxBxxx" - which are OK for me. This is why it needs modification. :)
The tricky part is that this one grep lies in the middle of a 'multiply-piped' command with many other greps, seds and awks inside. Thus forming a smarter pattern would be the best solution. Others would cause much additional work on changing other commands there, and even would impact another parts of the code.
Therefore, the question is: is there a possibility to match pattern and exclude a subpattern in one grep, but allow them to appear both in one line?
Example:
A file contains those lines:
fooTHISfoo
fooTHISfooTHATfoo
fooTHATfoo
foofoo
and I need to match
fooTHISfooTHATfoo
fooTHATfoo
foofoo
a line with "THIS" is not allowed.
You can use this awk command:
awk '!(/THIS/ && !/THAT/)' file
fooTHISfooTHATfoo
fooTHATfoo
foofoo
Or by reversing the boolean expression:
awk '!/THIS/ || /THAT/' file
fooTHISfooTHATfoo
fooTHATfoo
foofoo
You want to match lines that contain B, or don't contain A. Equivalently, to delete lines containing A and not B. You could do this in sed:
sed -e '/A/{;/B/!d}'
Or in this particular case:
sed '/THIS/{/THAT/!d}' file
Tricky for grep alone. However, replace that with an awk call: Filter out lines with "A" unless there is a "B"
echo "xxxAxxx
xxxBxxx
xxxAxxxBxxx
xxxBxxxAxxx
xxxxxx" | awk '!/A/ || /B/'
xxxBxxx
xxxAxxxBxxx
xxxBxxxAxxx
xxxxxx
grep solution. Uses perl regexp (-P) for Lookaheads (look if there is not, some explanation here).
grep -Pv '^((?!THAT).)*THIS((?!THAT).)*$' file
I have a very large file, containing the following blocks of lines throughout:
start :234
modify 123 directory1/directory2/file.txt
delete directory3/file2.txt
modify 899 directory4/file3.txt
Each block starts with the pattern "start : #" and ends with a blank line. Within the block, every line starts with "modify # " or "delete ".
I need to modify the path in each line, specifically appending a directory to the front. I would just use a general regex to cover the entire file for "modify #" or "delete ", but due to the enormous amount of other data in that file, there will likely be other matches to this somewhat vague pattern. So I need to use multi-line matching to find the entire block, and then perform edits within that block. This will likely result in >10,000 modifications in a single pass, so I'm also trying to keep the execution down to less than 30 minutes.
My current attempt is a sed one-liner:
sed '/^start :[0-9]\+$/ { :a /^[modify|delete] .*$/ { N; ba }; s/modify [0-9]\+ /&Appended_DIR\//g; s/delete /&Appended_DIR\//g }' file_to_edit
Which is intended to find the "start" line, loop while the lines either start with a "modify" or a "delete," and then apply the sed replacements.
However, when I execute this command, no changes are made, and the output is the same as the original file.
Is there an issue with the command I have formed? Would this be easier/more efficient to do in perl? Any help would be greatly appreciated, and I will clarify where I can.
I think you would be better off with perl
Specifically because you can work 'per record' by setting $/ - if you're records are delimited by blank lines, setting it to \n\n.
Something like this:
#!/usr/bin/env perl
use strict;
use warnings;
local $/ = "\n\n";
while (<>) {
#multi-lines of text one at a time here.
if (m/^start :\d+/) {
s/(modify \d+)/$1 Appended_DIR\//g;
s/(delete) /$1 Appended_DIR\//g;
}
print;
}
Each iteration of the loop will pick out a blank line delimited chunk, check if it starts with a pattern, and if it does, apply some transforms.
It'll take data from STDIN via a pipe, or myscript.pl somefile.
Output is to STDOUT and you can redirect that in the normal way.
Your limiting factor on processing files in this way are typically:
Data transfer from disk
pattern complexity
The more complex a pattern, and especially if it has variable matching going on, the more backtracking the regex engine has to do, which can get expensive. Your transforms are simple, so packaging them doesn't make very much difference, and your limiting factor will be likely disk IO.
(If you want to do an in place edit, you can with this approach)
If - as noted - you can't rely on a record separator, then what you can use instead is perls range operator (other answers already do this, I'm just expanding it out a bit:
#!/usr/bin/env perl
use strict;
use warnings;
while (<>) {
if ( /^start :/ .. /^$/)
s/(modify \d+)/$1 Appended_DIR\//g;
s/(delete) /$1 Appended_DIR\//g;
}
print;
}
We don't change $/ any more, and so it remains on it's default of 'each line'. What we add though is a range operator that tests "am I currently within these two regular expressions" that's toggled true when you hit a "start" and false when you hit a blank line (assuming that's where you would want to stop?).
It applies the pattern transformation if this condition is true, and it ... ignores and carries on printing if it is not.
sed's pattern ranges are your friend here:
sed -r '/^start :[0-9]+$/,/^$/ s/^(delete |modify [0-9]+ )/&prepended_dir\//' filename
The core of this trick is /^start :[0-9]+$/,/^$/, which is to be read as a condition under which the s command that follows it is executed. The condition is true if sed currently finds itself in a range of lines of which the first matches the opening pattern ^start:[0-9]+$ and the last matches the closing pattern ^$ (an empty line). -r is for extended regex syntax (-E for old BSD seds), which makes the regex more pleasant to write.
I would also suggest using perl. Although I would try to keep it in one-liner form:
perl -i -pe 'if ( /^start :/ .. /^$/){s/(modify [0-9]+ )/$1Append_DIR\//;s/(delete )/$1Append_DIR\//; }' file_to_edit
Or you can use redirection of stdout:
perl -pe 'if ( /^start :/ .. /^$/){s/(modify [0-9]+ )/$1Append_DIR\//;s/(delete )/$1Append_DIR\//; }' file_to_edit > new_file
with gnu sed (with BRE syntax):
sed '/^start :[0-9][0-9]*$/{:a;n;/./{s/^\(modify [0-9][0-9]* \|delete \)/\1NewDir\//;ba}}' file.txt
The approach here is not to store the whole block and to proceed to the replacements. Here, when the start of the block is found the next line is loaded in pattern space, if the line is not empty, replacements are performed and the next line is loaded, etc. until the end of the block.
Note: gnu sed has the alternation feature | available, it may not be the case for some other sed versions.
a way with awk:
awk '/^start :[0-9]+$/,/^$/{if ($1=="modify"){$3="newdirMod/"$3;} else if ($1=="delete"){$2="newdirDel/"$2};}{print}' file.txt
This is very simple in Perl, and probably much faster than the sed equivalent
This one-line program inserts Appended_DIR/ after any occurrence of modify 999 or delete at the start of a line. It uses the range operator to restrict those changes to blocks of text starting with start :999 and ending with a line containing no printable characters
perl -pe"s<^(?:modify\s+\d+|delete)\s+\K><Appended_DIR/> if /^start\s+:\d+$/ .. not /\S/" file_to_edit
Good grief. sed is for simple substitutions on individual lines, that is all. Once you start using constructs other than s, g, and p (with -n) you are using the wrong tool. Just use awk:
awk '
/^start :[0-9]+$/ { inBlock=1 }
inBlock { sub(/^(modify [0-9]+|delete) /,"&Appended_DIR/") }
/^$/ { inBlock=0 }
{ print }
' file
start :234
modify 123 Appended_DIR/directory1/directory2/file.txt
delete Appended_DIR/directory3/file2.txt
modify 899 Appended_DIR/directory4/file3.txt
There's various ways you can do the above in awk but I wrote it in the above style for clarity over brevity since I assume you aren't familiar with awk but should have no trouble following that since it reuses your own sed scripts regexps and replacement text.
Suppose I have 'abbc' string and I want to replace:
ab -> bc
bc -> ab
If I try two replaces the result is not what I want:
echo 'abbc' | sed 's/ab/bc/g;s/bc/ab/g'
abab
So what sed command can I use to replace like below?
echo abbc | sed SED_COMMAND
bcab
EDIT:
Actually the text could have more than 2 patterns and I don't know how many replaces I will need. Since there was a answer saying that sed is a stream editor and its replaces are greedily I think that I will need to use some script language for that.
Maybe something like this:
sed 's/ab/~~/g; s/bc/ab/g; s/~~/bc/g'
Replace ~ with a character that you know won't be in the string.
I always use multiple statements with "-e"
$ sed -e 's:AND:\n&:g' -e 's:GROUP BY:\n&:g' -e 's:UNION:\n&:g' -e 's:FROM:\n&:g' file > readable.sql
This will append a '\n' before all AND's, GROUP BY's, UNION's and FROM's, whereas '&' means the matched string and '\n&' means you want to replace the matched string with an '\n' before the 'matched'
sed is a stream editor. It searches and replaces greedily. The only way to do what you asked for is using an intermediate substitution pattern and changing it back in the end.
echo 'abcd' | sed -e 's/ab/xy/;s/cd/ab/;s/xy/cd/'
Here is a variation on ooga's answer that works for multiple search and replace pairs without having to check how values might be reused:
sed -i '
s/\bAB\b/________BC________/g
s/\bBC\b/________CD________/g
s/________//g
' path_to_your_files/*.txt
Here is an example:
before:
some text AB some more text "BC" and more text.
after:
some text BC some more text "CD" and more text.
Note that \b denotes word boundaries, which is what prevents the ________ from interfering with the search (I'm using GNU sed 4.2.2 on Ubuntu). If you are not using a word boundary search, then this technique may not work.
Also note that this gives the same results as removing the s/________//g and appending && sed -i 's/________//g' path_to_your_files/*.txt to the end of the command, but doesn't require specifying the path twice.
A general variation on this would be to use \x0 or _\x0_ in place of ________ if you know that no nulls appear in your files, as jthill suggested.
Here is an excerpt from the SED manual:
-e script
--expression=script
Add the commands in script to the set of commands to be run while processing the input.
Prepend each substitution with -e option and collect them together. The example that works for me follows:
sed < ../.env-turret.dist \
-e "s/{{ name }}/turret$TURRETS_COUNT_INIT/g" \
-e "s/{{ account }}/$CFW_ACCOUNT_ID/g" > ./.env.dist
This example also shows how to use environment variables in your substitutions.
This might work for you (GNU sed):
sed -r '1{x;s/^/:abbc:bcab/;x};G;s/^/\n/;:a;/\n\n/{P;d};s/\n(ab|bc)(.*\n.*:(\1)([^:]*))/\4\n\2/;ta;s/\n(.)/\1\n/;ta' file
This uses a lookup table which is prepared and held in the hold space (HS) and then appended to each line. An unique marker (in this case \n) is prepended to the start of the line and used as a method to bump-along the search throughout the length of the line. Once the marker reaches the end of the line the process is finished and is printed out the lookup table and markers being discarded.
N.B. The lookup table is prepped at the very start and a second unique marker (in this case :) chosen so as not to clash with the substitution strings.
With some comments:
sed -r '
# initialize hold with :abbc:bcab
1 {
x
s/^/:abbc:bcab/
x
}
G # append hold to patt (after a \n)
s/^/\n/ # prepend a \n
:a
/\n\n/ {
P # print patt up to first \n
d # delete patt & start next cycle
}
s/\n(ab|bc)(.*\n.*:(\1)([^:]*))/\4\n\2/
ta # goto a if sub occurred
s/\n(.)/\1\n/ # move one char past the first \n
ta # goto a if sub occurred
'
The table works like this:
** ** replacement
:abbc:bcab
** ** pattern
Tcl has a builtin for this
$ tclsh
% string map {ab bc bc ab} abbc
bcab
This works by walking the string a character at a time doing string comparisons starting at the current position.
In perl:
perl -E '
sub string_map {
my ($str, %map) = #_;
my $i = 0;
while ($i < length $str) {
KEYS:
for my $key (keys %map) {
if (substr($str, $i, length $key) eq $key) {
substr($str, $i, length $key) = $map{$key};
$i += length($map{$key}) - 1;
last KEYS;
}
}
$i++;
}
return $str;
}
say string_map("abbc", "ab"=>"bc", "bc"=>"ab");
'
bcab
May be a simpler approach for single pattern occurrence you can try as below:
echo 'abbc' | sed 's/ab/bc/;s/bc/ab/2'
My output:
~# echo 'abbc' | sed 's/ab/bc/;s/bc/ab/2'
bcab
For multiple occurrences of pattern:
sed 's/\(ab\)\(bc\)/\2\1/g'
Example
~# cat try.txt
abbc abbc abbc
bcab abbc bcab
abbc abbc bcab
~# sed 's/\(ab\)\(bc\)/\2\1/g' try.txt
bcab bcab bcab
bcab bcab bcab
bcab bcab bcab
Hope this helps !!
echo "C:\Users\San.Tan\My Folder\project1" | sed -e 's/C:\\/mnt\/c\//;s/\\/\//g'
replaces
C:\Users\San.Tan\My Folder\project1
to
mnt/c/Users/San.Tan/My Folder/project1
in case someone needs to replace windows paths to Windows Subsystem for Linux(WSL) paths
If replacing the string by Variable, the solution doesn't work.
The sed command need to be in double quotes instead on single quote.
#sed -e "s/#replacevarServiceName#/$varServiceName/g" -e "s/#replacevarImageTag#/$varImageTag/g" deployment.yaml
Here is an awk based on oogas sed
echo 'abbc' | awk '{gsub(/ab/,"xy");gsub(/bc/,"ab");gsub(/xy/,"bc")}1'
bcab
I believe this should solve your problem. I may be missing a few edge cases, please comment if you notice one.
You need a way to exclude previous substitutions from future patterns, which really means making outputs distinguishable, as well as excluding these outputs from your searches, and finally making outputs indistinguishable again. This is very similar to the quoting/escaping process, so I'll draw from it.
s/\\/\\\\/g escapes all existing backslashes
s/ab/\\b\\c/g substitutes raw ab for escaped bc
s/bc/\\a\\b/g substitutes raw bc for escaped ab
s/\\\(.\)/\1/g substitutes all escaped X for raw X
I have not accounted for backslashes in ab or bc, but intuitively, I would escape the search and replace terms the same way - \ now matches \\, and substituted \\ will appear as \.
Until now I have been using backslashes as the escape character, but it's not necessarily the best choice. Almost any character should work, but be careful with the characters that need escaping in your environment, sed, etc. depending on how you intend to use the results.
Every answer posted thus far seems to agree with the statement by kuriouscoder made in his above post:
The only way to do what you asked for is using an intermediate
substitution pattern and changing it back in the end
If you are going to do this, however, and your usage might involve more than some trivial string (maybe you are filtering data, etc.), the best character to use with sed is a newline. This is because since sed is 100% line-based, a newline is the one-and-only character you are guaranteed to never receive when a new line is fetched (forget about GNU multi-line extensions for this discussion).
To start with, here is a very simple approach to solving your problem using newlines as an intermediate delimiter:
echo "abbc" | sed -E $'s/ab|bc/\\\n&/g; s/\\nab/bc/g; s/\\nbc/ab/g'
With simplicity comes some trade-offs... if you had more than a couple variables, like in your original post, you have to type them all twice. Performance might be able to be improved a little bit, too.
It gets pretty nasty to do much beyond this using sed. Even with some of the more advanced features like branching control and the hold buffer (which is really weak IMO), your options are pretty limited.
Just for fun, I came up with this one alternative, but I don't think I would have any particular reason to recommend it over the one from earlier in this post... You have to essentially make your own "convention" for delimiters if you really want to do anything fancy in sed. This is way-overkill for your original post, but it might spark some ideas for people who come across this post and have more complicated situations.
My convention below was: use multiple newlines to "protect" or "unprotect" the part of the line you're working on. One newline denotes a word boundary. Two newlines denote alternatives for a candidate replacement. I don't replace right away, but rather list the candidate replacement on the next line. Three newlines means that a value is "locked-in", like your original post way trying to do with ab and bc. After that point, further replacements will be undone, because they are protected by the newlines. A little complicated if I don't say so myself... ! sed isn't really meant for much more than the basics.
# Newlines
NL=$'\\\n'
NOT_NL=$'[\x01-\x09\x0B-\x7F]'
# Delimiters
PRE="${NL}${NL}&${NL}"
POST="${NL}${NL}"
# Un-doer (if a request was made to modify a locked-in value)
tidy="s/(\\n\\n\\n${NOT_NL}*)\\n\\n(${NOT_NL}*)\\n(${NOT_NL}*)\\n\\n/\\1\\2/g; "
# Locker-inner (three newlines means "do not touch")
tidy+="s/(\\n\\n)${NOT_NL}*\\n(${NOT_NL}*\\n\\n)/\\1${NL}\\2/g;"
# Finalizer (remove newlines)
final="s/\\n//g"
# Input/Commands
input="abbc"
cmd1="s/(ab)/${PRE}bc${POST}/g"
cmd2="s/(bc)/${PRE}ab${POST}/g"
# Execute
echo ${input} | sed -E "${cmd1}; ${tidy}; ${cmd2}; ${tidy}; ${final}"
I have:
%{ lorem ipsum dolor
sit %{hello
world}%
amet}%
I want:
hello
world
That is, I want to keep the inner %{...}% of any number of nesting %{...}%s that may or may not span multiple lines.
Is there a sed or awk way?
This sed command:
sed -n -r 'H; ${g; s/([^}]|\}[^%])*%\{//; s/\}%([^%]|%[^{])*//; p}'
will gather the entirety of the input into the pattern space, then remove ...%{ (taking care to ensure that the ... doesn't contain }%) and }%... (taking care to ensure that the ... doesn't contain %{), and then print the result. So it's suitable for the case where you need just one block. The case with multiple blocks is trickier, but I'll think about it further, and update this answer if I get that working well.
Note that -r (to support Extended Regular Expressions, instead of Basic ones) is a GNU extension to sed, so if you're using a non-GNU sed that doesn't support it, let me know.
Edited to add: O.K., here's a version that supports multiple blocks:
sed -n -r 'H; ${g; s/^([^}]|\}[^%])*%\{//; s/\}%([^%]|%[^{])*$//; s/\}%([^%]|%[^{])*([^}]|\}[^%])*%\{/\n/g; p}'
It uses essentially the same approach as the previous, except that it only removes ...%{ at start-of-input and }%... at end-of-input, and that after it's done that, it proceeds to remove all instances of }%...%{ that do not contain %{...}%, replacing them with a newline.
The AWK way:
gawk '
/%{/ {
match($0,/%{.*/)
text=substr($0,RSTART+2,RLENGTH-2)
}
!/% {/ && !/}%/ {
text=text "\n" $0
}
/}%/ {
match($0,/}%/)
text=text "\n" substr($0,1,RSTART-1)
print text
exit
}'
This won't work if there's more than one {% or %} in the same line. In this case you need minor modification - use array in the match command.
One possible TXR way:
Simply scan the input freeform (as one big line) collecting matches for a regular expression into the variable wanted which gets implicitly collected into a list called wanted.
Then spit out the pieces, chopping two characters from the head and tail of each.
$ txr -c '#(freeform)
#(coll)#{wanted /\%{(~(.*(\%{|}\%).*))}\%/}#(end)
#(output)
#(rep)#{wanted [2..-2]}#(end)
#(end)' -
asdf asdf %{
%{ asdf
asdf
}% %{boo}% }%
[Ctrl-D][Enter]
asdf
asdf
boo
The regex ~ operator means complement. The variable wanted captures text which consists of %{ followed by the longest matching string which does not contain %{ or }% as a substring, followed by %}. TXR regex supports complement, intersection, difference. We have to write \% character because % is the non-greedy zero-or-more operator.
The output for the example given in the question is:
hello
world
rather than
hello
world
Author didn't clarify if that is really needed. This complicates the problem because %{hello occurs somewhere in the middle of the line, and so we must know the column position of the h in hello in order to know that the w in world is two spaces over.
I have an HTML file and would like to extract the text between <li> and </li> tags. There are of course a million ways to do this, but I figured it would be useful to get more into the habit of doing this in simple shell commands:
awk '/<li[^>]+><a[^>]+>([^>]+)<\/a>/m' cities.html
The problem is, this prints everything whereas I simply want to print the match in parenthesis -- ([^>]+) -- either awk doesn't support this, or I'm incompetent. The latter seems more likely. If you wanted to apply the supplied regex to a file and extract only the specified matches, how would you do it? I already know a half dozen other ways, but I don't feel like letting awk win this round ;)
Edit: The data is not well-structured, so using positional matches ($1, $2, etc.) is a no-go.
If you want to do this in the general case, where your list tags can contain any legal HTML markup, then awk is the wrong tool. The right tool for the job would be an HTML parser, which you can trust to get correct all of the little details of HTML parsing, including variants of HTML and malformed HTML.
If you are doing this for a special case, where you can control the HTML formatting, then you may be able to make awk work for you. For example, let's assume you can guarantee that each list element never occupies more than one line, is always terminated with </li> on the same line, never contains any markup (such as a list that contains a list), then you can use awk to do this, but you need to write a whole awk program that first finds lines that contain list elements, then uses other awk commands to find just the substring you are interested in.
But in general, awk is the wrong tool for this job.
gawk -F'<li>' -v RS='</li>' 'RT{print $NF}' file
Worked pretty well for me.
By your script, if you can get what you want (it means <li> and <a> tag is in one line.);
$ cat test.html | awk 'sub(/<li[^>]*><a[^>]*>/,"")&&sub(/<\/a>.*/,"")'
or
$ cat test.html | gawk '/<li[^>]*><a[^>]*>(.*?)<\/a>.*/&&$0=gensub(/<li[^>]*><a[^>]*>(.*?)<\/a>.*/,"\\1", 1)'
First one is for every awk, second one is for gnu awk.
There are several issues that I see:
The pattern has a trailing 'm' which is significant for multi-line matches in Perl, but Awk does not use Perl-compatible regular expressions. (At least, standard (non-GNU) awk does not.)
Ignoring that, the pattern seems to search for a 'start list item' followed by an anchor '<a>' to '</a>', not the end list item.
You search for anything that is not a '>' as the body of the anchor; that's not automatically wrong, but it might be more usual to search for anything that is not '<', or anything that is neither.
Awk does not do multi-line searches.
In Awk, '$1' denotes the first field, where the fields are separated by the field separator characters, which default to white space.
In classic nawk (as documented in the 'sed & awk' book vintage 1991) does not have a mechanism in place for pulling sub-fields out of matches, etc.
It is not clear that Awk is the right tool for this job. Indeed, it is not entirely clear that regular expressions are the right tool for this job.
Don't really know awk, how about Perl instead?
tr -d '\012' the.html | perl \
-e '$text = <>;' -e 'while ( length( $text) > 0)' \
-e '{ $text =~ /<li>(.*?)<\/li>(.*)/; $target = $1; $text = $2; print "$target\n" }'
1) remove newlines from file, pipe through perl
2) initialize a variable with the complete text, start a loop until text is gone
3) do a "non greedy" match for stuff bounded by list-item tags, save and print the target, set up for next pass
Make sense? (warning, did not try this code myself, need to go home soon...)
P.S. - "perl -n" is Awk (nawk?) mode. Perl is largely a superset of Awk, so I never bothered to learn Awk.