I want to use a regex to find merge conflicts in a file.
I've found previous posts that show how to find a pattern that matches this structure
FIRST SUBSTRING
/* several
new
lines
*/
SECOND SUBSTRING
which works with the following regex: (^FIRST SUBSTRING)(.+)((?:\n.+)+)(SECOND SUBSTRING)
However, I need to match this pattern:
FIRST SUBSTRING
/* several
new
lines
*/
SECOND SUBSTRING
/* several
new
lines
*/
THIRD SUBSTRING
Where first, second and third substrings are <<<<<<<, =======, >>>>>>> respectively.
I gave (^<<<<<<<)(.+)((?:\n.+)+)(=======)(.+)((?:\n.+)+)(>>>>>>) a shot but it does not work, which you can see on this demo ((^<<<<<<<)(.+)((?:\n.+)+)(=======) does work but it is not exactly what I am looking for)
Your expression does work with a couple of slight changes. Lengths of characters do not exactly match. And You are asking for at least one character after the SECOND SUBSTRING with (.+), when there are none in the text.
(<<<<<<<)(.+)((?:\n.+)+)(=======)(.*)((?:\n.+)+)(>>>>>>>)
From then onwards it makes groups as you expect (which the answer in the comments does not). You probably want to distinguish between your and their code.
Plus, if you have to choose among working expressions, I would choose yours instead of the options proposed for readability. Regex are not friendly things to read, and using repetitions (among other sophistications) make the code harder to read. This also goes for the ?:, just query specific groups, there is no need to avoid group creation there.
Setting the flag s (single line - dot matches newline) is needed to match the text from the structure. So you can use .*? for select multi line text overriding \n, until the next pattern (? lazy mode).
With this setting, the regex below matches what you need.
(<{7})(.*)(={7})(.*?)(>{7})(.*?\n)
Related
What I am trying to do is match values from one file to another, but I only need to match the first portion of the string and the last portion.
I am reading each file into a list, and manipulating these based on different Regex patterns I have created. Everything works, except when it comes to these type of values:
V-1\ZDS\R\EMBO-20-1:24
V-1\ZDS\R\EMBO-20-6:24
In this example, I only want to match 'V-1\ZDS\R\EMBO-20' and then compare the '24' value at the end of the string. The number x in '20-x:', can vary and doesn't matter in terms of comparisons, as long as the first and last parts of this string match.
This is the Regex I am using:
re.compile(r"(?:.*V-1\\ZDS\\R\\EMBO-20-\d.*)(:\d*\w.*)")
Once I filter down the list, I use the following function to return the difference between the two sets:
funcDiff = lambda x, y: list((set(x)- set(y))) + list((set(y)- set(x)))
Is there a way to take the list of differences and filter out the ones that have matching values after the
:
as mentioned above?
I apologize is this is an obvious answer, I'm new to Python and Regex!
The output I get is the differences between the entire strings, so even if the first and last part of the string match, if the number following the 'EMBO-20-x' doesn't also match, it returns it as being different.
Before discussing your question, regex101 is an incredibly useful tool for this type of thing.
Your issue stems from two issues:
1.) The way you used .*
2.) Greedy vs. Nongreedy matches
.* kinda sucks
.* is a regex expression that is very rarely what you actually want.
As a quick aside, a useful regex expression is [^c]* or [^c]+. These expressions match any character except the letter c, with the first expression matching 0 or more, and the second matched 1 or more.
.* will match all characters as many times as it can. Instead, try to start your regex patterns with more concrete starting points. Two good ways to do this are lookbehind expressions and anchors.
Another quick aside, it's likely that you are misusing regex.match and regex.find. match will only return a match that begins at the start of the string, while find will return matches anywhere in the input string. This could be the reason you included the .* in the first place, to allow a .match call to return a match deeper in the string.
Lookbehind Expressions
There are more complete explanations online, but in short, regex patterns like:
(?<=test)foo
will match the text foo, but only if test is right in front of it. To be more clear, the following strings will not match that regex:
foo
test-foo
test foo
but the following string will match:
testfoo
This will only match the text foo, though.
Anchors
Another option is anchors. ^ and $ are special characters, matching the start and end of a line of text. If you know your regex pattern will match exactly one line of text, start it with ^ and end it with $.
Leading patterns with .* and ending with .* are likely the source of your issue. Although you did not include full examples of your input or your code, you likely used match as opposed to find.
In regex, . matches any character, and * means 0 or more times. This means that for any input, your pattern will match the entire string.
Greedy vs. Non-Greedy qualifiers
The second issue is related to greediness. When your regex patterns have a * in them, they can match 0 or more characters. This can hide problems, as entire * expressions can be skipped. Your regex is likely matched several lines of text as one match, and hiding multiple records in a single .*.
The Actual Answer
Taking all of this in to consideration, let's assume that your input data looks like this:
V-1\ZDS\R\EMBO-20-1:24
V-1\ZDS\R\EMBO-20-6:24
V-1\ZDS\R\EMBO-20-3:93
V-1\ZDS\R\EMBO-20-6:22309
V-1\ZDS\R\EMBO-20-8:2238
V-1\ZDS\R\EMBO-20-3:28
A better regular expression would be:
^V-1\\ZDS\\R\\EMBO-20-\d:(\d+)$
To visualize this regex in action, follow this link.
There are several differences I would like to highlight:
Starting the expression with ^ and ending with $. This forces the regex to match exactly one line. Even though the pattern works without these characters, it's good practice when working with regex to be as explicit as possible.
No useless non-capturing group. Your example had a (?:) group at the start. This denotes a group that does not capture it's match. It's useful if you want to match a subpattern multiple times ((?:ab){5} matches ababababab without capturing anything). However, in your example, it did nothing :)
Only capturing the number. This makes it easier to extract the value of the capture groups.
No use of *, one use of +. + works like *, but it matches 1 or more. This is often more correct, as it prevents 'skipping' entire characters.
A small project I got assigned is supposed to extract website URLs from given text. Here's how the most relevant portion of it looks like :
webURLregex = re.compile(r'''(
(https://|http://)
[a-zA-Z0-9.%+-\\/_]+
)''',re.VERBOSE)
This does do its job properly, but I noticed that it also includes the ','s and '.' in URL strings it prints. So my first question is, how do I make it exclude any punctuation symbols in the end of the string it detects ?
My second question is referring to the title itself ( finally ), but doesn't really seem to affect this particular program I'm working on : Do character classes ( in this case [a-zA-Z0-9.%+-\/_]+ ) count as groups ( group[3] in this case ) ?
Thanks in advance.
To exclude some symbols at the end of string you can use negative lookbehind. For example, to disallow . ,:
.*(?<![.,])$
answering in reverse:
No, character classes are just shorthand for bracketed text. They don't provide groups in the same way that surrounding with parenthesis would. They only allow the regular expression engine to select the specified characters -- nothing more, nothing less.
With regards to finding comma and dot: Actually, I see the problem here, though the below may still be valuable, so I'll leave it. Essentially, you have this: [a-zA-Z0-9.%+-\\/_]+ the - character has special meaning: everything between these two characters -- by ascii code. so [A-a] is a valid range. It include A-Z, but also a bunch of other characters that aren't A-Z. If you want to include - in the range, then it needs to be the last character: [a-zA-Z0-9.%+\\/_-]+ should work
For comma, I actually don't see it represented in your regex, so I can't comment specifically on that. It shouldn't be allowed anywhere in the url. In general though, you'll just want to add more groups/more conditions.
First, break apart the url into the specifc groups you'll want:
(scheme)://(domain)(endpoint)
Each section gets a different set of requirements: e.g. maybe domain needs to end with a slash:
[a-zA-Z0-9]+\.com/ should match any domain that uses an alphanumeric character, and ends -- specifically -- with .com (note the \., otherwise it'll capture any single character followed by com/
For the endpoint section, you'll probably still want to allow special characters, but if you're confident you don't want the url to end with, say, a dot, then you could do something [A-Za-z0-9] -- note the lack of a dot here, plus, it's length -- only a single character. This will change the rest of your regex, so you need to think about that.
A couple of random thoughts:
If you're confident you want to match the whole line, add a $ to the end of the regex, to signify the end of the line. One possibility here is that your regex does match some portion of the text, but ignores the junk at the end, since you didn't say to read the whole line.
Regexes get complicated really fast -- they're kind of write-only code. Add some comments to help. E.g.
web_url_regex = re.compile(
r'(http://|https://)' # Capture the scheme name
r'([a-zA-Z0-9.%+-\\/_])' # Everything else, apparently
)
Do not try to be exhaustive in your validation -- as noted, urls are hard to validate because you can't know for sure that one is valid. But the form is pretty consistent, as laid out above: scheme, domain, endpoint (and query string)
To answer the second question first, no a character class is not a group (unless you explicitly make it into one by putting it in parentheses).
Regarding the first question of how to make it exclude the punctuation symbols at the end, the code below should answer that.
Firstly though, your regex had an issue separate from the fact that it was matching the final punctuation, namely that the last - does not appear to be intended as defining a range of characters (see footnote below re why I believe this to be the case), but was doing so. I've moved it to the end of the character class to avoid this problem.
Now a character class to match the final character is added at the end of the regexp, which is the same as the previous character class except that it does not include . (other punctuation is now already not included). So the matched pattern cannot end in .. The + (one or more) on the previous character class is now reduced to * (zero or more).
If for any reason the exact set of characters matched needs tweaking, then the same principle can still be employed: match a single character at the end from a reduced set of possibilities, preceded by any number of characters from a wider set which includes characters that are permitted to be included but not at the end.
import re
webURLregex = re.compile(r'''(
(https://|http://)
[a-zA-Z0-9.%+\\/_-]*
[a-zA-Z0-9%+\\/_-]
)''',re.VERBOSE)
str = "... at http://www.google.com/. It says"
m = re.search(webURLregex, str)
if m:
print(m.group())
Outputs:
http://www.google.com/
[*] The observation that the second - does not appear to be intended to define a character range is based on the fact that, if it was, such a range would be from 056-134 (octal) which would include also the alphabetical characters, making the a-zA-Z redundant.
I've been trying to design this regex but for the life of me I could not get it to not match if */ was hit before the special word.
I'm trying to match a whole multi line comment only if it contains a special word. I tried negative lookaheads/behinds but I could not figure out how to do it properly.
This is what I have so far:
(?s)(/\*.+?special.+?\*/)
Am I close or horribly off base? I tried including (?!\*/) unsuccessfully.
https://regex101.com/r/mD1nJ2/3
Edit: I had some redundant parts to the regex I removed.
You were not totally off base:
/\* # match /*
(?:(?!\*/)[\s\S])+? # match anything lazily, do not overrun */
special # match special
[\s\S]+? # match anything lazily afterwards
\*/ # match the closing */
The technique is called a tempered greedy token, see a demo on regex101.com (mind the modifiers, e.g. x for verbose mode !).
You might want to try another approach tough: analyze your document, grep the comments (using eg BeautifulSoup) and run string functions over them (if "special" in comment...).
I have the following html file:
<!-- <div class="_5ay5"><table class="uiGrid _51mz" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"><tbody><tr class="_51mx"><td class="_51m-"><div class="_u3y"><div class="_5asl"><a class="_47hq _5asm" href="/Dev/videos/1610110089242029/" aria-label="Who said it?" ajaxify="/Dev/videos/1610110089242029/" rel="theater">
In order to pull the string of numbers between videos/ and /", I'm using the following method that I found:
import re
Source_file = open('source.html').read()
result = re.compile('videos/(.*?)/"').search(Source_file)
print result
I've tried Googling an explanation for exactly how the (.*?) works in this particular implementation, but I'm still unclear. Could someone explain this to me? Is this what's known as a "non-greedy" match? If yes, what does that mean?
The ? in this context is a special operator on the repetition operators (+, *, and ?). In engines where it is available this causes the repetition to be lazy or non-greedy or reluctant or other such terms. Typically repetition is greedy which means that it should match as much as possible. So you have three types of repetition in most modern perl-compatible engines:
.* # Match any character zero or more times
.*? # Match any character zero or more times until the next match (reluctant)
.*+ # Match any character zero or more times and don't stop matching! (possessive)
More information can be found here: http://www.regular-expressions.info/repeat.html#lazy for reluctant/lazy and here: http://www.regular-expressions.info/possessive.html for possessive (which I'll skip discussing in this answer).
Suppose we have the string aaaa. We can match all of the a's with /(a+)a/. Literally this is
match one or more a's followed by an a.
This will match aaaa. The regex is greedy and will match as many a's as possible. The first submatch is aaa.
If we use the regex /(a+?)a this is
reluctantly match one or more as followed by an a
or
match one or more as until we reach another a
That is, only match what we need. So in this case the match is aa and the first submatch is a. We only need to match one a to satisfy the repetition and then it is followed by an a.
This comes up a lot when using regex to match within html tags, quotes and the suchlike -- usually reserved for quick and dirty operations. That is to say using regex to extract from very large and complex html strings or quoted strings with escape sequence can cause a lot of problems but it's perfectly fine for specific use cases. So in your case we have:
/Dev/videos/1610110089242029/
The expression needs to match videos/ followed by zero or more characters followed by /". If there is only one videos URL there that's just fine without being reluctant.
However we have
/videos/1610110089242029/" ... ajaxify="/Dev/videos/1610110089242029/"
Without reluctance, the regex will match:
1610110089242029/" ... ajaxify="/Dev/videos/1610110089242029
It tries to match as much as possible and / and " satisfy . just fine. With reluctance, the matching stops at the first /" (actually it backtracks but you can read about that separately). Thus you only get the part of the url you need.
It can be explained in a simple way:
.: match anything (any character),
*: any number of times (at least zero times),
?: as few times as possible (hence non-greedy).
videos/(.*?)/"
as a regular expression matches (for example)
videos/1610110089242029/"
and the first capturing group returns 1610110089242029, because any of the digits is part of “any character” and there are at least zero characters in it.
The ? causes something like this:
videos/1610110089242029/" something else … "videos/2387423470237509/"
to properly match as 1610110089242029 and 2387423470237509 instead of as 1610110089242029/" something else … "videos/2387423470237509, hence “as few times as possible”, hence “non-greedy”.
The . means any character. The * means any number of times, including zero. The ? does indeed mean non-greedy; that means that it will try to capture as few characters as possible, i.e., if the regex encounters a /, it could match it with the ., but it would rather not because the . is non-greedy, and since the next character in the regex is happy to match /, the . doesn't have to. If you didn't have the ?, that . would eat up the whole rest of the file because it would be chomping at the bit to match as many things as possible, and since it matches everything, it would go on forever.
I have the following regex to detect start and end script tags in the html file:
<script(?:[^<]+|<(?:[^/]|/(?:[^s])))*>(?:[^<]+|<(?:[^/]|/(?:[^s]))*)</script>
meaning in short it will catch: <script "NOT THIS</s" > "NOT THIS</s" </script>
it works but needs really long time to detect <script>,
even minutes or hours for long strings
The lite version works perfectly even for long string:
<script[^<]*>[^<]*</script>
however, the extended pattern I use as well for other tags like <a> where < and > are possible to appears also as values of attributes.
python test:
import re
pattern = re.compile('<script(?:[^<]+|<(?:[^/]|/(?:[^s])))*>(?:[^<]+|<(?:[^/]|/(?:^s]))*)</script>', re.I + re.DOTALL)
re.search(pattern, '11<script type="text/javascript"> easy>example</script>22').group()
re.search(pattern, '<script type="text/javascript">' + ('hard example' * 50) + '</script>').group()
how can I fix it?
The inner part of regex (after <script>) should be changed and simplified.
PS :) Anticipate your answers about the wrong approach like using regex in html parsing,
I know very well many html/xml parsers, and what I can expect in often broken html code, and regex is really useful here.
comment:
well, I need to handle:
each <a < document like this.border="5px;">
and approach is to use parsers and regex together
BeautifulSoup is only 2k lines, which not handling every html and just extends regex from sgmllib.
and the main reason is that I must know exact the position where every tag starts and stop. and every broken html must be handled.
BS is not perfect, sometimes happens:
BeautifulSoup('< scriPt\n\n>a<aa>s< /script>').findAll('script') == []
#Cylian:
atomic grouping as you know is not available in python's re.
so non-geedy everything .*? until <\s/\stag\s*>** is a winner at this time.
I know that is not perfect in that case:
re.search('<\sscript.?<\s*/\sscript\s>','< script </script> shit </script>').group()
but I can handle refused tail in the next parsing.
It's pretty obvious that html parsing with regex is not one battle figthing.
Use an HTML parser like beautifulsoup.
See the great answers for "Can I remove script tags with beautifulsoup?".
If your only tool is a hammer, every problem starts looking like a nail. Regular expressions are a powerful hammer but not always the best solution for some problems.
I guess you want to remove scripts from HTML posted by users for security reasons. If security is the main concern, regular expressions are hard to implement because there are so many things a hacker can modify to fool your regex, yet most browsers will happily evaluate... An specialized parser is easier to use, performs better and is safer.
If you are still thinking "why can't I use regex", read this answer pointed by mayhewr's comment. I could not put it better, the guy nailed it, and his 4433 upvotes are well deserved.
I don't know python, but I know regular expressions:
if you use the greedy/non-greedy operators you get a much simpler regex:
<script.*?>.*?</script>
This is assuming there are no nested scripts.
The problem in pattern is that it is backtracking. Using atomic groups this issue could be solved. Change your pattern to this**
<script(?>[^<]+?|<(?:[^/]|/(?:[^s])))*>(?>[^<]+|<(?:[^/]|/(?:[^s]))*)</script>
^^^^^ ^^^^^
Explanation
<!--
<script(?>[^<]+?|<(?:[^/]|/(?:[^s])))*>(?>[^<]+|<(?:[^/]|/(?:[^s]))*)</script>
Match the characters “<script” literally «<script»
Python does not support atomic grouping «(?>[^<]+?|<(?:[^/]|/(?:[^s])))*»
Match either the regular expression below (attempting the next alternative only if this one fails) «[^<]+?»
Match any character that is NOT a “<” «[^<]+?»
Between one and unlimited times, as few times as possible, expanding as needed (lazy) «+?»
Or match regular expression number 2 below (the entire group fails if this one fails to match) «<(?:[^/]|/(?:[^s]))»
Match the character “<” literally «<»
Match the regular expression below «(?:[^/]|/(?:[^s]))»
Match either the regular expression below (attempting the next alternative only if this one fails) «[^/]»
Match any character that is NOT a “/” «[^/]»
Or match regular expression number 2 below (the entire group fails if this one fails to match) «/(?:[^s])»
Match the character “/” literally «/»
Match the regular expression below «(?:[^s])»
Match any character that is NOT a “s” «[^s]»
Match the character “>” literally «>»
Python does not support atomic grouping «(?>[^<]+|<(?:[^/]|/(?:[^s]))*)»
Match either the regular expression below (attempting the next alternative only if this one fails) «[^<]+»
Match any character that is NOT a “<” «[^<]+»
Between one and unlimited times, as many times as possible, giving back as needed (greedy) «+»
Or match regular expression number 2 below (the entire group fails if this one fails to match) «<(?:[^/]|/(?:[^s]))*»
Match the character “<” literally «<»
Match the regular expression below «(?:[^/]|/(?:[^s]))*»
Between zero and unlimited times, as many times as possible, giving back as needed (greedy) «*»
Match either the regular expression below (attempting the next alternative only if this one fails) «[^/]»
Match any character that is NOT a “/” «[^/]»
Or match regular expression number 2 below (the entire group fails if this one fails to match) «/(?:[^s])»
Match the character “/” literally «/»
Match the regular expression below «(?:[^s])»
Match any character that is NOT a “s” «[^s]»
Match the characters “</script>” literally «</script>»
-->