I'm just getting to know regular expressions, but after doing quite a bit of reading (and learning quite a lot), I still have not been able to figure out a good solution to this problem.
Let me be clear, I understand that this particular problem might be better solved not using regular expressions, but for the sake of brevity let me just say that I need to use regular expressions (trust me, I know there are better ways to solve this).
Here's the problem. I'm given a big file, each line of which is exactly 4 characters long.
This is a regex that defines "valid" lines:
"/^[AB][CD][EF][GH]$/m"
In english, each line has either A or B at position 0, either C or D at position 1, either E or F at position 2, and either G or H at position 3. I can assume that each line will be exactly 4 characters long.
What I'm trying to do is given one of those lines, match all other lines that contain 2 or more common characters.
The below example assumes the following:
$line is always a valid format
BigFileOfLines.txt contains only valid lines
Example:
// Matches all other lines in string that share 2 or more characters in common
// with "$line"
function findMatchingLines($line, $subject) {
$regex = "magic regex I'm looking for here";
$matchingLines = array();
preg_match_all($regex, $subject, $matchingLines);
return $matchingLines;
}
// Example Usage
$fileContents = file_get_contents("BigFileOfLines.txt");
$matchingLines = findMatchingLines("ACFG", $fileContents);
/*
* Desired return value (Note: this is an example set, there
* could be more or less than this)
*
* BCEG
* ADFG
* BCFG
* BDFG
*/
One way I know that will work is to have a regex like the following (the following regex would only work for "ACFG":
"/^(?:AC.{2}|.CF.|.{2}FG|A.F.|A.{2}G|.C.G)$/m"
This works alright, performance is acceptable. What bothers me about it though is that I have to generate this based off of $line, where I'd rather have it be ignorant of what the specific parameter is. Also, this solution doesn't scale terrible well if later the code is modified to match say, 3 or more characters, or if the size of each line grows from 4 to 16.
It just feels like there's something remarkably simple that I'm overlooking. Also seems like this could be a duplicate question, but none of the other questions I've looked at really seem to address this particular problem.
Thanks in advance!
Update:
It seems that the norm with Regex answers is for SO users to simply post a regular expression and say "This should work for you."
I think that's kind of a halfway answer. I really want to understand the regular expression, so if you can include in your answer a thorough (within reason) explanation of why that regular expression:
A. Works
B. Is the most efficient (I feel there are a sufficient number of assumptions that can be made about the subject string that a fair amount of optimization can be done).
Of course, if you give an answer that works, and nobody else posts the answer *with* a solution, I'll mark it as the answer :)
Update 2:
Thank you all for the great responses, a lot of helpful information, and a lot of you had valid solutions. I chose the answer I did because after running performance tests, it was the best solution, averaging equal runtimes with the other solutions.
The reasons I favor this answer:
The regular expression given provides excellent scalability for longer lines
The regular expression looks a lot cleaner, and is easier for mere mortals such as myself to interpret.
However, a lot of credit goes to the below answers as well for being very thorough in explaining why their solution is the best. If you've come across this question because it's something you're trying to figure out, please give them all a read, helped me tremendously.
Why don't you just use this regex $regex = "/.*[$line].*[$line].*/m";?
For your example, that translates to $regex = "/.*[ACFG].*[ACFG].*/m";
This is a regex that defines "valid" lines:
/^[A|B]{1}|[C|D]{1}|[E|F]{1}|[G|H]{1}$/m
In english, each line has either A or B at position 0, either C or D
at position 1, either E or F at position 2, and either G or H at
position 3. I can assume that each line will be exactly 4 characters
long.
That's not what that regex means. That regex means that each line has either A or B or a pipe at position 0, C or D or a pipe at position 1, etc; [A|B] means "either 'A' or '|' or 'B'". The '|' only means 'or' outside of character classes.
Also, {1} is a no-op; lacking any quantifier, everything has to appear exactly once. So a correct regex for the above English is this:
/^[AB][CD][EF][GH]$/
or, alternatively:
/^(A|B)(C|D)(E|F)(G|H)$/
That second one has the side effect of capturing the letter in each position, so that the first captured group will tell you whether the first character was A or B, and so on. If you don't want the capturing, you can use non-capture grouping:
/^(?:A|B)(?:C|D)(?:E|F)(?:G|H)$/
But the character-class version is by far the usual way of writing this.
As to your problem, it is ill-suited to regular expressions; by the time you deconstruct the string, stick it back together in the appropriate regex syntax, compile the regex, and do the test, you would probably have been much better off just doing a character-by-character comparison.
I would rewrite your "ACFG" regex thus: /^(?:AC|A.F|A..G|.CF|.C.G|..FG)$/, but that's just appearance; I can't think of a better solution using regex. (Although as Mike Ryan indicated, it would be better still as /^(?:A(?:C|.E|..G))|(?:.C(?:E|.G))|(?:..EG)$/ - but that's still the same solution, just in a more efficiently-processed form.)
You've already answered how to do it with a regex, and noted its shortcomings and inability to scale, so I don't think there's any need to flog the dead horse. Instead, here's a way that'll work without the need for a regex:
function findMatchingLines($line) {
static $file = null;
if( !$file) $file = file("BigFileOfLines.txt");
$search = str_split($line);
foreach($file as $l) {
$test = str_split($l);
$matches = count(array_intersect($search,$test));
if( $matches > 2) // define number of matches required here - optionally make it an argument
return true;
}
// no matches
return false;
}
There are 6 possibilities that at least two characters match out of 4: MM.., M.M., M..M, .MM., .M.M, and ..MM ("M" meaning a match and "." meaning a non-match).
So, you need only to convert your input into a regex that matches any of those possibilities. For an input of ACFG, you would use this:
"/^(AC..|A.F.|A..G|.CF.|.C.G|..FG)$/m"
This, of course, is the conclusion you're already at--so good so far.
The key issue is that Regex isn't a language for comparing two strings, it's a language for comparing a string to a pattern. Thus, either your comparison string must be part of the pattern (which you've already found), or it must be part of the input. The latter method would allow you to use a general-purpose match, but does require you to mangle your input.
function findMatchingLines($line, $subject) {
$regex = "/(?<=^([AB])([CD])([EF])([GH])[.\n]+)"
+ "(\1\2..|\1.\3.|\1..\4|.\2\3.|.\2.\4|..\3\4)/m";
$matchingLines = array();
preg_match_all($regex, $line + "\n" + $subject, $matchingLines);
return $matchingLines;
}
What this function does is pre-pend your input string with the line you want to match against, then uses a pattern that compares each line after the first line (that's the + after [.\n] working) back to the first line's 4 characters.
If you also want to validate those matching lines against the "rules", just replace the . in each pattern to the appropriate character class (\1\2[EF][GH], etc.).
People may be confused by your first regex. You give:
"/^[A|B]{1}|[C|D]{1}|[E|F]{1}|[G|H]{1}$/m"
And then say:
In english, each line has either A or B at position 0, either C or D at position 1, either E or F at position 2, and either G or H at position 3. I can assume that each line will be exactly 4 characters long.
But that's not what that regex means at all.
This is because the | operator has the highest precedence here. So, what that regex really says, in English, is: Either A or | or B in the first position, OR C or | or D in the first position, OR E or | or F in the first position, OR G or '|orH` in the first position.
This is because [A|B] means a character class with one of the three given characters (including the |. And because {1} means one character (it is also completely superfluous and could be dropped), and because the outer | alternate between everything around it. In my English expression above each capitalized OR stands for one of your alternating |'s. (And I started counting positions at 1, not 0 -- I didn't feel like typing the 0th position.)
To get your English description as a regex, you would want:
/^[AB][CD][EF][GH]$/
The regex will go through and check the first position for A or B (in the character class), then check C or D in the next position, etc.
--
EDIT:
You want to test for only two of these four characters matching.
Very Strictly speaking, and picking up from #Mark Reed's answer, the fastest regex (after it's been parsed) is likely to be:
/^(A(C|.E|..G))|(.C(E)|(.G))|(..EG)$/
as compared to:
/^(AC|A.E|A..G|.CE|.C.G|..EG)$/
This is because of how the regex implementation steps through text. You first test if A is in the first position. If that succeeds, then you test the sub-cases. If that fails, then you're done with all those possible cases (or which there are 3). If you don't yet have a match, you then test if C is in the 2nd position. If that succeeds, then you test for the two subcases. And if none of those succeed, you test, `EG in the 3rd and 4th positions.
This regex is specifically created to fail as fast as possible. Listing each case out separately, means to fail, you would have test 6 different cases (each of the six alternatives), instead of 3 cases (at a minimum). And in cases of A not being the first position, you would immediately go to test the 2nd position, without hitting it two more times. Etc.
(Note that I don't know exactly how PHP compiles regex's -- it's possible that they compile to the same internal representation, though I suspect not.)
--
EDIT: On additional point. Fastest regex is a somewhat ambiguous term. Fastest to fail? Fastest to succeed? And given what possible range of sample data of succeeding and failing rows? All of these would have to be clarified to really determine what criteria you mean by fastest.
Here's something that uses Levenshtein distance instead of regex and should be extensible enough for your requirements:
$lines = array_map('rtrim', file('file.txt')); // load file into array removing \n
$common = 2; // number of common characters required
$match = 'ACFG'; // string to match
$matchingLines = array_filter($lines, function ($line) use ($common, $match) {
// error checking here if necessary - $line and $match must be same length
return (levenshtein($line, $match) <= (strlen($line) - $common));
});
var_dump($matchingLines);
I bookmarked the question yesterday in the evening to post an answer today, but seems that I'm a little late ^^ Here is my solution anyways:
/^[^ACFG]*+(?:[ACFG][^ACFG]*+){2}$/m
It looks for two occurrences of one of the ACFG characters surrounded by any other characters. The loop is unrolled and uses possessive quantifiers, to improve performance a bit.
Can be generated using:
function getRegexMatchingNCharactersOfLine($line, $num) {
return "/^[^$line]*+(?:[$line][^$line]*+){$num}$/m";
}
Related
I am trying to retrieve matches from a comma separated list that is located inside parenthesis using regular expression. (I also retrieve the version number in the first capture group, though that's not important to this question)
What's worth noting is that the expression should ideally handle all possible cases, where the list could be empty or could have more than 3 entries = 0 or more matches in the second capture group.
The expression I have right now looks like this:
SomeText\/(.*)\s\(((,\s)?([\w\s\.]+))*\)
The string I am testing this on looks like this:
SomeText/1.0.4 (debug, OS X 10.11.2, Macbook Pro Retina)
Result of this is:
1. [6-11] `1.0.4`
2. [32-52] `, Macbook Pro Retina`
3. [32-34] `, `
4. [34-52] `Macbook Pro Retina`
The desired result would look like this:
1. [6-11] `1.0.4`
2. [32-52] `debug`
3. [32-34] `OS X 10.11.2`
4. [34-52] `Macbook Pro Retina`
According to the image above (as far as I can see), the expression should work on the test string. What is the cause of the weird results and how could I improve the expression?
I know there are other ways of solving this problem, but I would like to use a single regular expression if possible. Please don't suggest other options.
When dealing with a varying number of groups, regex ain't the best. Solve it in two steps.
First, break down the statement using a simple regex:
SomeText\/([\d.]*) \(([^)]*)\)
1. [9-14] `1.0.4`
2. [16-55] `debug, OS X 10.11.2, Macbook Pro Retina`
Then just explode the second result by ',' to get your groups.
Probably the \G anchor works best here for binding the match to an entry point. This regex is designed for input that is always similar to the sample that is provided in your question.
(?<=SomeText\/|\G(?!^))[(,]? *\K[^,)(]+
(?<=SomeText\/|\G) the lookbehind is the part where matches should be glued to
\G matches where the previous match ended (?!^) but don't match start
[(,]? *\ matches optional opening parenthesis or comma followed by any amount of space
\K resets beginning of the reported match
[^,)(]+ matches the wanted characters, that are none of ( ) ,
Demo at regex101 (grab matches of $0)
Another idea with use of capture groups.
SomeText\/([^(]*)\(|\G(?!^),? *([^,)]+)
This one without lookbehind is a bit more accurate (it also requires the opening parenthesis), of better performance (needs fewer steps) and probably easier to understand and maintain.
SomeText\/([^(]*)\( the entry anchor and version is captured here to $1
|\G(?!^),? *([^,)]+) or glued to previous match: capture to $2 one or more characters, that are not , ) preceded by optional space or comma.
Another demo at regex101
Actually, stribizhev was close:
(?:SomeText\/([^() ]*)\s*\(|(?!^)\G),?\s*([^(),]+)(?=[^()]*\))
Just had to make that one class expect at least one match
(?:SomeText\/([0-9.]+)\s*\(|(?!^)\G),?\s*([^(),]+)(?=[^()]*\)) is a little more clear as long as the version number is always numbers and periods.
I wanted to come up with something more elegant than this (though this does actually work):
SomeText\/(.*)\s\(([^\,]+)?\,?\s?([^\,]+)?\,?\s?([^\,]+)?\,?\s?([^\,]+)?\,?\s?([^\,]+)?\,?\s?([^\,]+)?\,?\s?\)
Obviously, the
([^\,]+)?\,?\s?
is repeated 6 times.
(It can be repeated any number of times and it will work for any number of comma-separated items equal to or below that number of times).
I tried to shorten the long, repetitive list of ([^\,]+)?\,?\s? above to
(?:([^\,]+)\,?\s?)*
but it doesn't work and my knowledge of regex is not currently good enough to say why not.
This should solve your problem. Use the code you already have and add something like this. It will determine where commas are in your string and delete them.
Use trim() to delete white spaces at the start or the end.
$a = strpos($line, ",");
$line = trim(substr($line, 55-$a));
I hope, this helps you!
It is a well known fact that modern regular expression implementations (most notably PCRE) have little in common with the original notion of regular grammars. For example you can parse the classical example of a context-free grammar {anbn; n>0} (e.g. aaabbb) using this regex (demo):
~^(a(?1)?b)$~
My question is: How far can you go? Is it also possible to parse the context-sensitive grammar {anbncn;n>0} (e.g. aaabbbccc) using PCRE?
Inspired by NullUserExceptions answer (which he already deleted as it failed for one case) I think I have found a solution myself:
$regex = '~^
(?=(a(?-1)?b)c)
a+(b(?-1)?c)
$~x';
var_dump(preg_match($regex, 'aabbcc')); // 1
var_dump(preg_match($regex, 'aaabbbccc')); // 1
var_dump(preg_match($regex, 'aaabbbcc')); // 0
var_dump(preg_match($regex, 'aaaccc')); // 0
var_dump(preg_match($regex, 'aabcc')); // 0
var_dump(preg_match($regex, 'abbcc')); // 0
Try it yourself: http://codepad.viper-7.com/1erq9v
Explanation
If you consider the regex without the positive lookahead assertion (the (?=...) part), you have this:
~^a+(b(?-1)?c)$~
This does nothing more than check that there's an arbitrary number of as, followed by an equal number of bs and cs.
This doesn't yet satisfy our grammar, because the number of as must be the same, too. We can ensure that by checking that the number of as equals the number of bs. And this is what the expression in the lookahead assertion does: (a(?-1)?b)c. The c is necessary so we don't only match a part of the bs.
Conclusion
I think this impressively shows that modern regex is not only capable of parsing non-regular grammars, but can even parse non-context-free grammars. Hopefully this will lay to rest the endless parroting of "you can't do X with regex because X isn't regular"
Here is an alternative solution using balancing groups with .NET regex:
^(?'a'a)+(?'b-a'b)+(?(a)(?!))(?'c-b'c)+(?(b)(?!))$
Not PCRE, but may be of interest.
Example at: http://ideone.com/szhuE
Edit: Added the missing balancing check for the group a, and an online example.
My question is: How far can you go?
In the interests of not creating code that is an unreadable morass of punctuation, I'm going to risk the downvotes and answer a different, though very much related, question: how far should you go?
Regular expression parsers are a brilliant thing to have in your toolkit but they are not the be all and end all of programming. The ability to write parsers in a readable manner is also a brilliant thing to have in your toolkit.
Regular expressions should be used right up to the point where they start making your code hard to understand. Beyond that, their value is dubious at best, damaging at worst. For this specific case, rather than using something like the hideous:
~^(?=(a(?-1)?b)c)a+(b(?-1)?c)$~x
(with apologies to NikiC), which the vast majority of people trying to maintain it are either going to have to replace totally or spend substantial time reading up on and understanding, you may want to consider something like a non-RE, "proper-parser" solution (pseudo-code):
# Match "aa...abb...bcc...c" where:
# - same character count for each letter; and
# - character count is one or more.
def matchABC (string str):
# Init string index and character counts.
index = 0
dim count['a'..'c'] = 0
# Process each character in turn.
for ch in 'a'..'c':
# Count each character in the subsequence.
while index < len(str) and str[index] == ch:
count[ch]++
index++
# Failure conditions.
if index != len(str): return false # did not finish string.
if count['a'] < 1: return false # too few a characters.
if count['a'] != count['b']: return false # inequality a and b count.
if count['a'] != count['c']: return false # inequality a and c count.
# Otherwise, it was okay.
return true
This will be far easier to maintain in the future. I always like to suggest to people that they should assume those coming after them (who have to maintain the code they write) are psychopaths who know where you live - in my case, that may be half right, I have no idea where you live :-)
Unless you have a real need for regular expressions of this kind (and sometimes there are good reasons, such as performance in interpreted languages), you should optimise for readability first.
Qtax Trick
A solution that wasn't mentioned:
^(?:a(?=a*(\1?+b)b*(\2?+c)))+\1\2$
See what matches and fails in the regex demo.
This uses self-referencing groups (an idea #Qtax used on his vertical regex).
I have a 10 digit string being passed to me, and I want to verify that it is a valid ASIN before doing more processing and/or redirection.
I know that a non ISBN ASIN will always be non-numeric and 10 characters in length
I just want to be able to tell if the item being passed is a valid ASIN or is it just a search string after I have already eliminated that it could be a ISBN.
For example "SOUNDBOARD" is a search term while "B000J5XS3C" is an ASIN and "1412775884" is an ISBN.
Is there a lightweight way to check ASIN?
Update, 2017
#Leonid commented that he’s found the ASIN BT00LLINKI.
Although ASIN’s don’t seem to be strictly incremental, the oldest non-ISBN ASINs do tend to have more zeros than newer ASINs. Perhaps it was inevitable that we’d start seeing ASINs with no zero padding (and then what, I wonder...). So we’re now looking for "B" followed by nine alphanumeric characters (or an ISBN) — unfortunately, the "loss" of that zero makes it a lot easier to get a false positive.
/^(B[\dA-Z]{9}|\d{9}(X|\d))$/
Original answer
In Javascript, I use the following regexp to determine whether a string is or includes what’s plausibly an ASIN:
/^\s*(B\d{2}[A-Z\d]{7}|\d{9}[X\d])\s*$/
or, without worrying about extra whitespace or capturing:
/^(B\d{2}[A-Z\d]{7}|\d{9}[X\d])$/
As others have mentioned, Amazon hasn't really revealed the spec. In practice I've only seen two possible formats for ASINs, though:
10-digit ISBNs, which are 9 digits + a final character which may be a digit or "X".
The letter B followed by two digits followed by seven ASCII-range alphanumeric characters (with alpha chars being uppercase).
If anyone has encountered an ASIN that doesn't fit that pattern, chime in. It may actually be possible to get more restrictive than this, but I'm not certain. Non-ISBN ASINs might only use a subset of alphabetic characters, but even if so, they do use most of them. Some seem to appear more frequently than others, at least (K, Z, Q, W...)
For PHP, there is a valid regular expression for ASINs here.
function isAsin($string){
$ptn = "/B[0-9]{2}[0-9A-Z]{7}|[0-9]{9}(X|0-9])/";
return preg_match($ptn, $string, $matches) === 1;
}
maybe you could check on the amazon site whether the ASIN exists.
http://www.amazon.com/dp/YOUR10DIGITASIN
this URL return a http-statuscode=200 when the product exists and a 404 if that was not a valid ASIN.
After trying couple of solutions (including the top voted answer) they did not work well in PHP. (ex. 8619203011 is shown as ASIN)
Here is the solution that works very well:
function isAsin($string){
$ptn = "/^(?i)(B0|BT)[0-9A-Z]{8}$/";
if (preg_match($ptn, $string, $matches)) {
return true;
}
}
$testAsins = array('k023l5bix8', 'bb03l5bix8', 'b143l5bix8', 'bt00plinki', ' ', '');
foreach ($testAsins as $testAsin) {
if(isAsin($testAsin)){
echo $testAsin." is ASIN"."<br>";
} else {
echo $testAsin." is NOT ASIN"."<br>";
}
}
Explanation:
/^(?i)(B0|BT)[0-9A-Z]{8}$/
/^ = Beginning
(?i) = Case in-sensitive
(B0|BT)= Starting with B0 or BT
[0-9A-Z]= any numbers or letters
{8} = 8 numbers or letters allowed (on top of +2 from B0 or BT)
So I have an interesting problem: I have a string, and for the most part i know what to expect:
http://www.someurl.com/st=????????
Except in this case, the ?'s are either upper case letters or numbers. The problem is, the string has garbage mixed in: the string is broken up into 5 or 6 pieces, and in between there's lots of junk: unprintable characters, foreign characters, as well as plain old normal characters. In short, stuff that's apt to look like this: Nyþ=mî;ëMÝ×nüqÏ
Usually the last 8 characters (the ?'s) are together right at the end, so at the moment I just have PHP grab the last 8 chars and hope for the best. Occasionally, that doesn't work, so I need a more robust solution.
The problem is technically unsolvable, but I think the best solution is to grab characters from the end of the string while they are upper case or numeric. If I get 8 or more, assume that is correct. Otherwise, find the st= and grab characters going forward as many as I need to fill up the 8 character quota. Is there a regex way to do this or will i need to roll up my sleeves and go nested-loop style?
update:
To clear up some confusion, I get an input string that's like this:
[garbage]http:/[garbage]/somewe[garbage]bsite.co[garbage]m/something=[garbage]????????
except the garbage is in unpredictable locations in the string (except the end is never garbage), and has unpredictable length (at least, I have been able to find patterns in neither). Usually the ?s are all together hence me just grabbing the last 8 chars, but sometimes they aren't which results in some missing data and returned garbage :-\
$var = '†http://þ=www.ex;üßample-website.î;ëcomÝ×ü/joy_hÏere.html'; // test case
$clean = join(
array_filter(
str_split($var, 1),
function ($char) {
return (
array_key_exists(
$char,
array_flip(array_merge(
range('A','Z'),
range('a','z'),
range((string)'0',(string)'9'),
array(':','.','/','-','_')
))
)
);
}
)
);
Hah, that was a joke. Here's a regex for you:
$clean = preg_replace('/[^A-Za-z0-9:.\/_-]/','',$var);
As stated, the problem is unsolvable. If the garbage can contain "plain old normal characters" characters, and the garbage can fall at the end of the string, then you cannot know whether the target string from this sample is "ABCDEFGH" or "BCDEFGHI":
__http:/____/somewe___bsite.co____m/something=__ABCDEFGHI__
What do these values represent? If you want to retain all of it, just without having to deal with garbage in your database, maybe you should hex-encode it using bin2hex().
You can use this regular expression :
if (preg_match('/[\'^£$%&*()}{##~?><>,|=_+¬-]/', $string) ==1)
How can you match the following words by PHP, either by regex/globbing/...?
Examples
INNO, heppeh, isi, pekkep, dadad, mum
My attempt would be to make a regex which has 3 parts:
1st match match [a-zA-Z]*
[a-zA-Z]?
rotation of the 1st match // Problem here!
The part 3 is the problem, since I do not know how to rotate the match.
This suggests me that regex is not the best solution here, since it is too very inefficient for long words.
I think regex are a bad solution. I'd do something with the condition like: ($word == strrev($word)).
Regexs are not suitable for finding palindromes of an arbitrary length.
However, if you are trying to find all of the palindromes in a large set of text, you could use regex to find a list of things that might be palindromes, and then filter that list to find the words that actually are palindromes.
For example, you can use a regex to find all words such that the first X characters are the reverse of the last X characters (from some small fixed value of X, like 2 or 3), and then run a secondary filter against all the matches to see if the whole word is in fact a palindrome.
In PHP once you get the string you want to check (by regex or split or whatever) you can just:
if ($string == strrev($string)) // it's a palindrome!
i think this regexp can work
$re = '~([a-z])(.?|(?R))\1~';