Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
This question appears to be off-topic because it lacks sufficient information to diagnose the problem. Describe your problem in more detail or include a minimal example in the question itself.
Closed 8 years ago.
Improve this question
How can I write a regex that will match the following conditions:
Where every instance of the occurance 'eVar7=' contains the following 'unav'
This should be false:
;AA;;;;eVar7=nr_unav,;AA;;;;eVar7=br_unavail,;AA;;;;eVar7=sugg,;AA;;;;eVar7=sugg,;AA;;;;eVar7=sugg
and this should return true:
;AA;;;;eVar7=nr_unav,;AA;;;;eVar7=br_unavail,;AA;;;;eVar7=nr_unav,;AA;;;;eVar7=nr_unav11,;AA;;;;eVar7=nr_unavasdfasdferwgf
This regex does the opposite. If there is a match means that you don't want it:
eVar7=(?![^;]*?unav)
It uses a negative lookahead. Meaning that after the eVar7 match there should not be something with "unav" in the middle. If so, it matches.
This is just to put you on the right track however as there are a lot to consider with your examples. For example where exactly should this "unav" pattern exist. What characters are allowed between eVar7 and "unav" etc. Feel free to change the regex to suit your needs.
Related
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
This question appears to be off-topic because it lacks sufficient information to diagnose the problem. Describe your problem in more detail or include a minimal example in the question itself.
Closed 8 years ago.
Improve this question
I need a regular expression that covers this syntax:
[schema].[table]
I need to validate that the table name has and schema name and also brings the square brakes.
This regex matches your pattern:
^\[\w+\]\.\[\w+\]$
The \w term (letters, digits and underscore) happens to fit nicely with standard SQL names.
If you want to allow any characters in names (like space, hyphen, whatever) use this:
^\[[^\]]+\]\.\[[^\]]+\]$
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
This question appears to be off-topic because it lacks sufficient information to diagnose the problem. Describe your problem in more detail or include a minimal example in the question itself.
Closed 9 years ago.
Improve this question
I want to match a string of 10 characters and all of them need to be integers. How do I write a regular expression to check for this format.
Valid values should be something like - '1234567890', '4321567890'
The easiest (not all dialects support this):
[0-9]{10}
Another option:
[0-9][0-9][0-9][0-9][0-9][0-9][0-9][0-9][0-9][0-9]
If you match the whole string, don't forget the ^ and $ markers:
^[0-9]{10}$
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
Questions asking for code must demonstrate a minimal understanding of the problem being solved. Include attempted solutions, why they didn't work, and the expected results. See also: Stack Overflow question checklist
Closed 9 years ago.
Improve this question
I have a string
.HACK G.U. VOL. 1 REBIRTH
I'm using a tool that allows me to specify a RegEx statement that can be used in a replace operation.
I want the RegEx to find all the periods "." that start after the 1st position. The replace operation should return the following.
.HACK GU VOL 1 REBIRTH
Thanks
The following will do the trick:
(?<!^)(\.)
per http://rubular.com/r/w1apzTZLPk
Since Javascript doesn't support negative lookbehind, this can't be done in Javascript, but there are alternatives as discussed in http://blog.stevenlevithan.com/archives/mimic-lookbehind-javascript
One approach in this case would be to capture the previous character and replace it with the same content as part of the replacement process, as in:
(.)(\.)
Note: You don't need to use a capture group for the matching of the literal . in either of the above. I just used that technique to highlight the match in Rubular.
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
Questions asking for code must demonstrate a minimal understanding of the problem being solved. Include attempted solutions, why they didn't work, and the expected results. See also: Stack Overflow question checklist
Closed 8 years ago.
Improve this question
How to match anything between {esbmsg:header: and }
like xxxxxx could be any string {esbmsg:header:xxxxxx}
Try with:
{esbmsg:header:([^}]*)}
Where [^}]* matches everything that is not } character.
Try this regex
{esbmsg:header:(.*)}
It will also allow you to have any character in value.
Well, if you want to capture only the content of your expression (the "xxxxx" part) the best approach is to use positive look ahead:
(?<={esbmsg:header:)[^}]+
Depending on how your content looks you might have to tweak the [^}] part. For further information on regex (or a detailed explanation of the expression above) I recommend the following:
Regex reference
Regex tutorial
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
Questions asking for code must demonstrate a minimal understanding of the problem being solved. Include attempted solutions, why they didn't work, and the expected results. See also: Stack Overflow question checklist
Closed 9 years ago.
Improve this question
Looking for some regex help. I need to match words/phrases e.g. "confidential" "top secret" "sensitive" unless they are preceded by other words, for example: "contain" on the same line ..
"This email may contain confidential information" - this would not match
"Please see the attached confidential document" - would match because "contain" does not appear before the keyword "confidential" on the link.
I looked at using negative lookbehind but it's limited by width, so it would not work. In my case, the preceding words can appear several words before the keyword I am trying to match. Thanks!
You would think lookbehind, but it actually needs to be lookahead:
/^((?!contain).)*(confidential|top secret|sensitive)/
Because of the lookbehind fixed-wdth requirement.