Find Regex Pattern From Inputs - regex

I have a user access log like this:
pagename url
broker_pv /broker/934832
broker_pv /broker/983432
broker_pv /broker/n/342349
listing_pv /listing/a1-b2/
listing_pv /listing/c3/
I want to find out whether a future url "/broker/245729" belongs to "broker_pv" or "listing_pv", or doesn't match at all.
It's like a machine learning process: I feed the computer some raw data, it learns, and then help me filtering things.
One way to do it, I can think of, is a "pattern finder" process. i.e., from the raw input, we human can deduce that "broker_pv" urls will match a pattern "/broker/(n/)?[0-9]+". So when a url like "/broker/245729" comes, I can test all the patterns against it, and judge which "pagename" it belongs to.
Then the question is, how to find out these patterns and thus build up a "pagename-pattern pair collection" for further use.
Or there's a better way, hopefully?

Related

Parse a string for open and close tags

Let's say I have the following strings:
"This [color=RGB]is[\color] a string."
"This [color=RGB][bold]is[\bold][\color] another string."
What I'm looking for is a good way to parse the string in order to extract the tag information and then reconstruct the original string without tags.
The tag informations will be used during text rendering.
Obviously I can achieve the goal by working directly with strings (find/substr/replace and so on), but I'm asking if there is another way cleaner, for example using regular expression.
Note:
There are very few tags I need, but there is the possibility to nest them (only of different type).
Can't use Boost.
There's a very simple answer that might work, depending on the complexity of your strings. (And me understanding you correctly, i.e. you just want to get the cleaned up strings, not actually extract the tags.) Just remove all tags. Replace
\[.*?]
with nothing. Example here
Now, if your string should be able to contain tag-like objects this might not work.
Regards

Grok Pattern for Domain name in a list

I tried to write an own grok pattern for domain name. But couldn't create it. Someone help me on this.
data format :
["test1.example.com", "test2.example.com", "test3.example.com", "new1.example.com", "new2.example.com", "new3.example.com", "dev.example.com"]
Sometimes, the above data count may vary means value is dynamic. Like as
["test1.example.com", "test2.example.com"]
Is there any possibility to create pattern for this?

Specific Regex Failing on Neko and Native

So I'm working on some cleanup in haxeflixel, and I need to validate a csv map, so I'm using a regex to check if its ok (don't mention the ending commas, I know thats not valid csv but I want to allow it), and I think I have a decent regex for doing that, and it seems to work well on flash, but c++ crashes, and neko gives me this error: An error occured while running pcre_exec....
here is my regex, I'm sorry its long, but I have no idea where the problem is...
^(([ ]*-?[0-9]+[ ]*,?)+\r?\n?)+$
if anyone knows what might be going on I'd appreciate it,
Thanks,
Nico
ps. there are probably errors in my regex for checking csv, but I can figure those out, its kind of enjoyable, I'd rather just know what specifically could be causing this:)
edit: ah, I've just noticed this doesn't happen on all strings, once I narrow it down to what strings, I will post one... as for what I'm checking for, its basically just to make sure theres no weird xml header, or any non integer value in the map file, basically it should validate this:
1,1,1,1
1,1,1,1
1,1,1,1
or this:
1,1,1,1,
1,1,1,1,
1,1,1,1,
but not:
xml blahh blahh>
1,m,1,1
1,1,b,1
1,1,1,1
xml>
(and yes I know thats not valid xml;))
edit: it gets stranger:
so I'm trying to determine what strings crash it, and while this still wouldnt explain a normal map crashing, its definatly weird, and has the same result:
what happens is:
this will fail a .match() test, but not crash:
a
0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0
1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1
0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0
1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1
while this will crash the program:
0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0
1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1
0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0
1,*a*,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1
To be honest, you wrote one of the worst regexps I ever seen. It actually looks like it was written specifically to be as slow as possible. I write it not to offend you, but to express how much you need to learn to write regexps(hint: writing your own regexp engine is a good exercise).
Going to your problem, I guess it just runs out of memory(it is extremely memory intensive). I am not sure why it happens only on pcre targets(both neko and cpp targets use pcre), but I guess it is about memory limits per regexp run in pcre or some heuristics in other targets to correct such miswritten regexps.
I'd suggest something along the lines of
~/^(( *-?[0-9]+ *,)* *-?[0-9]+ *,?\r?\n)*(( *-?[0-9]+ *,)* *-?[0-9]+ *,?\r?\n?)$/
There, "~/" and last "/" are haxe regexp markers.
I wasnt extensively testing it, just a run on your samples, but it should do the job(probably with a bit of tweaking).
Also, just as a hint, I'd suggest you to split file into lines first before running any regexps, it will lower memmory usage(or you will need to hold only a part of your text in memory) and simplify your regexp.
I'd also note that since you will need to parse csv anyhow(for any properly formed input, which are prevailing in your data I guess), it might be much faster to do all the tests while actually parsing.
Edit: the answer to question "why it eats so much memory"
Well, it is not a short topic, and that's why I proposed to you to write your own regexp engine. There are some differences in implementations, but generally imagine regexp engine works like that:
parses your regular expression and builds a graph of all possible states(state is basically a symbol value and a number of links to other symbols which can follow it).
sets up a list of read pointer and state pointer pairs, current state list, consisting of regexp initial state and a pointer to matched string first letter
sets up read pointer to the first symbol of symbol string
sets up state poiter to initial state of regexp
takes up one pair from current state list and stores it as current state and current read pointer
reads symbol under current read pointer
matches it with symbols in states which current state have links to, and makes a list of states that matched.
if there is a final regexp state in this list, goes to 12
for each item in this list adds a pair of next read pointer(which is current+1) and item to the current state list
if the current state list is empty, returns false, as string didn't match the regexp
goes to 6
here it is, in a final state of matched regexp, returns true, string matches regexp.
Of course, there are some differences between regexp engines, and some of them eliminate some problems afaik. And of course they also have pseudosymbols, groupings, they need to store the positions regexp and groups matched, they have lookahead and lookbehind and also grouping references which makes it a bit(quite a humble measure) more complex and forces to use a bit more complex data structures, but the main idea is the same. So, here we are and your problem is clearly seen from algorithm. The less specific you are about what you want to match and the more there chances for engine to match the same substring as different paths in state graph, the more memory and processor time it will consume, exponentionally.
Try to model how regexp engine matches regexp (a+a+)+b on strings aaaaaab, ab, aa, aaaaaaaaaa, aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa (Don't try the last one, it would take hours or days to compute on a modern PC.)
Also, it worth to note that some regexp engines do things in a bit different way so they can handle this situations properly, but there always are ways to make regexp extremely slow.
And another thing to note is that I may hav ebeen wrong about the exact memory problem. This case it may be processor too, and before that it may be engine limits on memory/processor kicking in, not exactly system starving of memory.

internal code-completion in vim

There's a completion type that isn't listed in the vim help files (notably: insert.txt), but which I instinctively feel the need for rather often. Let's say I have the words "Awesome" and "SuperCrazyAwesome" in my file. I find an instance of Awesome that should really be SuperCrazyAwesome, so I hop to the beginning of the word, enter insert mode, and then must type "SuperCrazy".
I feel I should be able to type "S", creating "SCrazy", and then simply hit a completion hotkey or two to have it find what's to the left of the cursor ("S"), what's to the right ("Crazy"), regex this against all words in the file ("/S\w*Crazy/"), and provide me with a completion popup menu of choices, or just do the replace if there's only one match.
I'd like to use the actual completion system for this. There exists a "user defined" completion which uses a function, and has a good example in the helps for replacing from a given list. However, I can't seem to track down many particulars that I'd need to make this happen, including:
How do I get a list of all words in the file from a vim function?
Can I list words from all buffers (with filenames), as vim's complete does?
How do I, in insert mode, get the text in the word before/after the cursor?
Can completion replace the entire word, and not just up to the cursor?
I've been at this for a couple of hours now. I keep hitting dead ends, like this one, which introduced me to \%# for matching with the cursor position, which doesn't seem to work for me. For instance, a search for \w*\%# returns only the first character of the word I'm on, regardless of where I'm in it. The \%# doesn't seem to anchor.
Although its not exactly following your desired method in the past I've written https://github.com/mjbrownie/swapit which might perform your task if you are looking for related keywords. It would fall down in this scenario if you have hundreds of matches.
It's mainly useful for 2-10 possible sequenced matches.
You would define a list
:SwapList awesomes Awesome MoreAwesome SuperCrazyAwesome FullyCompletelyAwesome UnbelievablyAwesome
and move through the matches with the incrementor decrementor keys (c+a) (c+x)
There are also a few other cycling type plugins like swap words that I know of on vim.org and github.
The advantage here is you don't have to group words together with regex.
I wrote something like that years ago when working with 3rd party libraries with rather long CamelCasePrefixes in every function different for each component. But it was in Before Git Hub era and I considered it a lost jewel, but search engine says I am not a complete ass and posted it to Vim wiki.
Here it is: http://vim.wikia.com/wiki/Custom_keyword_completion
Just do not ask me what 'MKw' means. No idea.
This will need some adaptation to your needs, as it is looking up only the word up to the cursor, but the idea is there. It works for current buffer only. Iterating through all buffers would be sluggish as it is not creating any index. For those purposes I would go with external grep.

How to create a regex to check whether a set of words exists in a given string?

How can I write a regex to check if a set of words exist in a given string?
For example, I would like to check if a domain name contains "yahoo.com" at the end of it.
'answers.yahoo.com', would be valid.
'yahoo.com.answers', would be wrong. 'yahoo.com' must come in the end.
I got a hint from somewhere that it might be something like this.
"/^[^yahoo.com]$/"
But I am totally new to regex. So please help with this one, then I can learn further.
When asking regex questions, always specify the language or application, too!
From your history it looks like JavaScript / jQuery is most likely.
Anyway, to test that a string ends in "yahoo.com" use /.*yahoo\.com$/i
In JS code:
if (/.*yahoo\.com$/i.test (YOUR_STR) ) {
//-- It's good.
}
To test whether a set of words has at least one match, use:
/word_one|word_two|word_three/
To limit matches to just the most-common, legal sub-domains, ending with "yahoo.com", use:
/^(\w+\.)+yahoo\.com$/
(As a crude, first pass)
For other permutations, please clarify the question.