We Keep Coding

Stop When <br> is Encountered In C# RegEx [duplicate]

My regex pattern looks something like
<xxxx location="file path/level1/level2" xxxx some="xxx">
I am only interested in the part in quotes assigned to location. Shouldn't it be as easy as below without the greedy switch?
/.*location="(.*)".*/
Does not seem to work.

You need to make your regular expression lazy/non-greedy, because by default, "(.*)" will match all of "file path/level1/level2" xxx some="xxx".
Instead you can make your dot-star non-greedy, which will make it match as few characters as possible:
/location="(.*?)"/
Adding a ? on a quantifier (?, * or +) makes it non-greedy.
Note: this is only available in regex engines which implement the Perl 5 extensions (Java, Ruby, Python, etc) but not in "traditional" regex engines (including Awk, sed, grep without -P, etc.).

location="(.*)" will match from the " after location= until the " after some="xxx unless you make it non-greedy.
So you either need .*? (i.e. make it non-greedy by adding ?) or better replace .* with [^"]*.
[^"] Matches any character except for a " <quotation-mark>
More generic: [^abc] - Matches any character except for an a, b or c

How about
.*location="([^"]*)".*
This avoids the unlimited search with .* and will match exactly to the first quote.

Use non-greedy matching, if your engine supports it. Add the ? inside the capture.
/location="(.*?)"/

Use of Lazy quantifiers ? with no global flag is the answer.
Eg,
If you had global flag /g then, it would have matched all the lowest length matches as below.

Here's another way.
Here's the one you want. This is lazy [\s\S]*?
The first item:
[\s\S]*?(?:location="[^"]*")[\s\S]* Replace with: $1
Explaination: https://regex101.com/r/ZcqcUm/2
For completeness, this gets the last one. This is greedy [\s\S]*
The last item:[\s\S]*(?:location="([^"]*)")[\s\S]*
Replace with: $1
Explaination: https://regex101.com/r/LXSPDp/3
There's only 1 difference between these two regular expressions and that is the ?

The other answers here fail to spell out a full solution for regex versions which don't support non-greedy matching. The greedy quantifiers (.*?, .+? etc) are a Perl 5 extension which isn't supported in traditional regular expressions.
If your stopping condition is a single character, the solution is easy; instead of
a(.*?)b
you can match
a[^ab]*b
i.e specify a character class which excludes the starting and ending delimiiters.
In the more general case, you can painstakingly construct an expression like
start(|[^e]|e(|[^n]|n(|[^d])))end
to capture a match between start and the first occurrence of end. Notice how the subexpression with nested parentheses spells out a number of alternatives which between them allow e only if it isn't followed by nd and so forth, and also take care to cover the empty string as one alternative which doesn't match whatever is disallowed at that particular point.
Of course, the correct approach in most cases is to use a proper parser for the format you are trying to parse, but sometimes, maybe one isn't available, or maybe the specialized tool you are using is insisting on a regular expression and nothing else.

Because you are using quantified subpattern and as descried in Perl Doc,
By default, a quantified subpattern is "greedy", that is, it will
match as many times as possible (given a particular starting location)
while still allowing the rest of the pattern to match. If you want it
to match the minimum number of times possible, follow the quantifier
with a "?" . Note that the meanings don't change, just the
"greediness":
*? //Match 0 or more times, not greedily (minimum matches)
+? //Match 1 or more times, not greedily
Thus, to allow your quantified pattern to make minimum match, follow it by ? :
/location="(.*?)"/

import regex
text = 'ask her to call Mary back when she comes back'
p = r'(?i)(?s)call(.*?)back'
for match in regex.finditer(p, str(text)):
print (match.group(1))
Output:
Mary

Regular expression that works on dots

I have this regular expression :
string[] values = Regex
.Matches(mystring4, #"([\w-[\d]][\w\s-[\d]]+)|([0-9]+)")
.OfType<Match>()
.Select(match => match.Value.Trim())
.ToArray();
This regular expression turns this string :
MY LIMITED COMPANY (52100000 / 58447000)";
To these strings :
MY LIMITED COMPANY - 52100000 - 58447000
This also works on non-English characters.
But there is one problem, when I have this string : MY. LIMITED. COMPANY. , it splits that too. I don't want that. I don't want that regular expression to work on dots. How can I do that? Thanks.

You may add the dot after each \w in your pattern, and I also suggest removing unnecessary ( and ):
string[] values = Regex
.Matches("MY. LIMITED. COMPANY. (52100000 / 58447000)", #"[\w.-[\d]][\w.\s-[\d]]+|[0-9]+")
.OfType<Match>()
.Select(match => match.Value.Trim())
.ToArray();
foreach (var s in values)
Console.WriteLine(s);
See the C# demo
Pattern:
[\w.-[\d]] - one Unicode letter or underscore ([\w-[\d]]) or a dot (.)
[\w.\s-[\d]]+ - 1 or more (due to + quantifier at the end) characters that are either Unicode letters or underscore, ., or whitespace (\s)
| - or
[0-9]+ - one or more ASCII-only digits

I'd simplify the expression. What if the names in the front include numbers? Not that my solution doesn't exactly mimic the original expression. It will allow numbers in the name part.
Let's start from the beginning:
To match words all you need is a sequence of word characters:
\w+
This will match any alphanumerical characters including underscores (_).
Considering you want the possibility of the word ending with a dot, you can add it and make it optional (one or zero matches):
\w+\.?
Note the escape to make it an actual character rather than a character class "any character".
To match another potential word following, we now simply duplicate this match, add a white space before, and once again make it optional using the * quantifier:
\w+\.?(?:\w+\.?)*
In case you haven't seen a group starting with ?: is a non-matching group. In essence this works like a usual group, but won't save a matching group in your results.
And that's it already. This pattern will split your demo string as expected. Of course there could be other possible characters not being covered by this.
You can see the results of this matching online here and also play around with it.
To test your regular expressions (and to learn them), I'd really recommend you using a tool such as http://regex101.com
It has an input mask allowing you to provide your pattern and your target string. On the right hand side it will first explain the pattern to you (to see if it's indeed what you had in mind) and below it will show all the groups matched. Just keep in mind it actually uses slightly different flavors of regular expressions, but this shouldn't matter for such simple patterns. (I'm not affiliated with that site, just consider it really useful.)
As an alternative, to directly use C#'s regex parser, you can also try this Regex Tester. This works in a similar way, although doesn't include any explanations, which might be not as ideal for someone just getting started.

regex to find incomplete xml tags in c#

I'm trying to use regular expression to find incomplete xml tags that have no attributes. So far, I've managed to come up with this regex </?\s*([a-zA-Z0-9]?:\s+)?[a-zA-Z0-9]*(?!>), but that doesn't do the trick.
In an xml like this one:
<abc>
</abc>
<ab>
</ab
<s:ab
I want to match </ab and <s:ab (as they're both lacking ">" at the end). Is there a way to do this using regular expressions in c#?

You are pretty close. Your major problem is that the pattern backtracks when the negative lookahead fails. You can avoid that by putting the part before the lookahead in an non-backtracking atomic group: (?>no backtracking in here).
For example:
(?xi) # turn on eXtended (ignore spaces/comments) and case-Insensitive mode
(?> # don't backtrack
< /? # tag start (no space allowed after it)
[a-z0-9]+ # tag name/space
(?: : [a-z0-9]+ )?
\s* # optional spaces
)
(?! > ) # no ending
Note that this will match <foo in <foo bar>.

If you are just trying to find errors in a single xml file, try opening it in Google Chrome web browser - it will show the line where the error is.
But if you have lot's of files you have to process in code, then you'd need something more powerful than regexes.

As people have said, this is probably a fruitless endeavor - as XML is not a regular language. However, part of your problem is your lookahead. You only ensure that it's not immediately followed by a closing angle bracket - which means things like <ab of <abc> will match even when you don't want them too. so you need to include the entire tag structure in your lookahead.
To get a match for the exact data you gave, I could use the regular expression:
#</?([a-z]?:)?[a-z]*(?!/?([a-z]?:)?[a-z]*>)#
Which you can see in action here. The key here is to make sure that at no point can the regular expressions engine backtrack (by say, dropping one character) to validate the lookahead. There are other ways to do this - such as possessive quantifiers, which refuse to give up their matched token in a normal backtracking process, but the standard .NET engine doesn't support possessive matching. It does support an atomic group - which behaves the same way, but using a group instead of a quantifier. You can see here that I've wrapped the entire opening of the tag in an atomic group. ((?> ... ))
#(?></?([a-z]?:)?[a-z]*)(?!>)#
You're free to enter your own regular expression for how a tag ought to be formatted, but I must say that this regular expression is already pushing the limits for readable code, and messing about with legal xml tag names is going to push it further in that direction. Nevertheless, I hope this has helped shed some light on the error.

Extending regular expression syntax to say 'does not contain text XYZ'

I have an app where users can specify regular expressions in a number of places. These are used while running the app to check if text (e.g. URLs and HTML) matches the regexes. Often the users want to be able to say where the text matches ABC and does not match XYZ. To make it easy for them to do this I am thinking of extending regular expression syntax within my app with a way to say 'and does not contain pattern'. Any suggestions on a good way to do this?
My app is written in C# .NET 3.5.
My plan (before I got the awesome answers to this question...)
Currently I'm thinking of using the ¬ character: anything before the ¬ character is a normal regular expression, anything after the ¬ character is a regular expression that can not match in the text to be tested.
So I might use some regexes like this (contrived) example:
on (this|that|these) day(s)?¬(every|all) day(s) ?
Which for example would match 'on this day the man said...' but would not match 'on this day and every day after there will be ...'.
In my code that processes the regex I'll simply split out the two parts of the regex and process them separately, e.g.:
public bool IsMatchExtended(string textToTest, string extendedRegex)
{
int notPosition = extendedRegex.IndexOf('¬');
// Just a normal regex:
if (notPosition==-1)
return Regex.IsMatch(textToTest, extendedRegex);
// Use a positive (normal) regex and a negative one
string positiveRegex = extendedRegex.Substring(0, notPosition);
string negativeRegex = extendedRegex.Substring(notPosition + 1, extendedRegex.Length - notPosition - 1);
return Regex.IsMatch(textToTest, positiveRegex) && !Regex.IsMatch(textToTest, negativeRegex);
}
Any suggestions on a better way to implement such an extension? I'd need to be slightly cleverer about splitting the string on the ¬ character to allow for it to be escaped, so wouldn't just use the simple Substring() splitting above. Anything else to consider?
Alternative plan
In writing this question I also came across this answer which suggests using something like this:
^(?=(?:(?!negative pattern).)*$).*?positive pattern
So I could just advise people to use a pattern like, instead of my original plan, when they want to NOT match certain text.
Would that do the equivalent of my original plan? I think it's quite an expensive way to do it peformance-wise, and since I'm sometimes parsing large html documents this might be an issue, whereas I suppose my original plan would be more performant. Any thoughts (besides the obvious: 'try both and measure them!')?
Possibly pertinent for performance: sometimes there will be several 'words' or a more complex regex that can not be in the text, like (every|all) in my example above but with a few more variations.
Why!?
I know my original approach seems weird, e.g. why not just have two regexes!? But in my particular application administrators provide the regular expressions and it would be rather difficult to give them the ability to provide two regular expressions everywhere they can currently provide one. Much easier in this case to have a syntax for NOT - just trust me on that point.
I have an app that lets administrators define regular expressions at various configuration points. The regular expressions are just used to check if text or URLs match a certain pattern; replacements aren't made and capture groups aren't used. However, often they would like to specify a pattern that says 'where ABC is not in the text'. It's notoriously difficult to do NOT matching in regular expressions, so the usual way is to have two regular expressions: one to specify a pattern that must be matched and one to specify a pattern that must not be matched. If the first is matched and the second is not then the text does match. In my application it would be a lot of work to add the ability to have a second regular expression at each place users can provide one now, so I would like to extend regular expression syntax with a way to say 'and does not contain
pattern'.

You don't need to introduce a new symbol. There already is support for what you need in most regex engines. It's just a matter of learning it and applying it.
You have concerns about performance, but have you tested it? Have you measured and demonstrated those performance problems? It will probably be just fine.
Regex works for many many people, in many many different scenarios. It probably fits your requirements, too.
Also, the complicated regex you found on the other SO question, can be simplified. There are simple expressions for negative and positive lookaheads and lookbehinds.
?! ?<! ?= ?<=
Some examples
Suppose the sample text is <tr valign='top'><td>Albatross</td></tr>
Given the following regex's, these are the results you will see:
tr - match
td - match
^td - no match
^tr - no match
^<tr - match
^<tr>.*</tr> - no match
^<tr.*>.*</tr> - match
^<tr.*>.*</tr>(?<tr>) - match
^<tr.*>.*</tr>(?<!tr>) - no match
^<tr.*>.*</tr>(?<!Albatross) - match
^<tr.*>.*</tr>(?<!.*Albatross.*) - no match
^(?!.*Albatross.*)<tr.*>.*</tr> - no match
Explanations
The first two match because the regex can apply anywhere in the sample (or test) string. The second two do not match, because the ^ says "start at the beginning", and the test string does not begin with td or tr - it starts with a left angle bracket.
The fifth example matches because the test string starts with <tr.
The sixth does not, because it wants the sample string to begin with <tr>, with a closing angle bracket immediately following the tr, but in the actual test string, the opening tr includes the valign attribute, so what follows tr is a space. The 7th regex shows how to allow the space and the attribute with wildcards.
The 8th regex applies a positive lookbehind assertion to the end of the regex, using ?<. It says, match the entire regex only if what immediately precedes the cursor in the test string, matches what's in the parens, following the ?<. In this case, what follows that is tr>. After evaluating ``^.*, the cursor in the test string is positioned at the end of the test string. Therefore, thetr>` is matched against the end of the test string, which evaluates to TRUE. Therefore the positive lookbehind evaluates to true, therefore the overall regex matches.
The ninth example shows how to insert a negative lookbehind assertion, using ?<! . Basically it says "allow the regex to match if what's right behind the cursor at this point, does not match what follows ?<! in the parens, which in this case is tr>. The bit of regex preceding the assertion, ^<tr.*>.*</tr> matches up to and including the end of the string. Because the pattern tr> does match the end of the string. But this is a negative assertion, therefore it evaluates to FALSE, which means the 9th example is NOT a match.
The tenth example uses another negative lookbehind assertion. Basically it says "allow the regex to match if what's right behind the cursor at this point, does not match what's in the parens, in this case Albatross. The bit of regex preceding the assertion, ^<tr.*>.*</tr> matches up to and including the end of the string. Checking "Albatross" against the end of the string yields a negative match, because the test string ends in </tr>. Because the pattern inside the parens of the negative lookbehind does NOT match, that means the negative lookbehind evaluates to TRUE, which means the 10th example is a match.
The 11th example extends the negative lookbehind to include wildcards; in english the result of the negative lookbehind is "only match if the preceding string does not include the word Albatross". In this case the test string DOES include the word, the negative lookbehind evaluates to FALSE, and the 11th regex does not match.
The 12th example uses a negative lookahead assertion. Like lookbehinds, lookaheads are zero-width - they do not move the cursor within the test string for the purposes of string matching. The lookahead in this case, rejects the string right away, because .*Albatross.* matches; because it is a negative lookahead, it evaluates to FALSE, which mean the overall regex fails to match, which means evaluation of the regex against the test string stops there.
example 12 always evaluates to the same boolean value as example 11, but it behaves differently at runtime. In ex 12, the negative check is performed first, at stops immediately. In ex 11, the full regex is applied, and evaluates to TRUE, before the lookbehind assertion is checked. So you can see that there may be performance differences when comparing lookaheads and lookbehinds. Which one is right for you depends on what you are matching on, and the relative complexity of the "positive match" pattern and the "negative match" pattern.
For more on this stuff, read up at http://www.regular-expressions.info/
Or get a regex evaluator tool and try out some tests.
like this tool:
source and binary

You can easily accomplish your objectives using a single regex. Here is an example which demonstrates one way to do it. This regex matches a string containing "cat" AND "lion" AND "tiger", but does NOT contain "dog" OR "wolf" OR "hyena":
if (Regex.IsMatch(text, #"
# Match string containing all of one set of words but none of another.
^ # anchor to start of string.
# Positive look ahead assertions for required substrings.
(?=.*? cat ) # Assert string has: 'cat'.
(?=.*? lion ) # Assert string has: 'lion'.
(?=.*? tiger ) # Assert string has: 'tiger'.
# Negative look ahead assertions for not-allowed substrings.
(?!.*? dog ) # Assert string does not have: 'dog'.
(?!.*? wolf ) # Assert string does not have: 'wolf'.
(?!.*? hyena ) # Assert string does not have: 'hyena'.
",
RegexOptions.Singleline | RegexOptions.IgnoreCase |
RegexOptions.IgnorePatternWhitespace)) {
// Successful match
} else {
// Match attempt failed
}
You can see the needed pattern. When assembling the regex, be sure to run each of the user provided sub-strings through the Regex.escape() method to escape any metacharacters it may contain (i.e. (, ), | etc). Also, the above regex is written in free-spacing mode for readability. Your production regex should NOT use this mode, otherwise whitespace within the user substrings would be ignored.
You may want to add \b word boundaries before and after each "word" in each assertion if the substrings consist of only real words.
Note also that the negative assertion can be made a bit more efficient using the following alternative syntax:
(?!.*?(?:dog|wolf|hyena))

Regular Expression to reject special characters other than commas

I am working in asp.net. I am using Regular Expression Validator
Could you please help me in creating a regular expression for not allowing special characters other than comma. Comma has to be allowed.
I checked in regexlib, however I could not find a match. I treid with ^(a-z|A-Z|0-9)*[^#$%^&*()']*$ . When I add other characters as invalid, it does not work.
Also could you please suggest me a place where I can find a good resource of regular expressions? regexlib seems to be big; but any other place which lists very limited but most used examples?
Also, can I create expressions using C# code? Any articles for that?

[\w\s,]+
works fine, as you can see bellow.
RegExr is a great place to test your regular expressions with real time results, it also comes with a very complete list of common expressions.
[] character class \w Matches any word character (alphanumeric & underscore). \s
Matches any whitespace character (spaces, tabs, line breaks). , include comma + is greedy match; which will match the previous 1 or more times.

[\d\w\s,]*
Just a guess

To answer on any articles, I got started here, find it to be an excellent resource:
http://www.regular-expressions.info/
For your current problem, try something like this:
[\w\s,]*
Here's a breakdown:
Match a single character present in the list below «[\w\s,]*»
Between zero and unlimited times, as many times as possible, giving back as needed (greedy) «*»
A word character (letters, digits, etc.) «\w»
A whitespace character (spaces, tabs, line breaks, etc.) «\s»
The character “,” «,»

For a single character that is not a comma, [^,] should work perfectly fine.

You can try [\w\s,] regular expression. This regex will match only alpha-numeric characters and comma. If any other character appears within text, then this wont match.
For your second question regarding regular expression resource, you can goto
http://www.regular-expressions.info/
This website has lot of tutorials on regex, plus it has lot of usefult information.
Also, can I create expressions using
C# code? Any articles for that?
By this, do you mean to say you want to know which class and methods for regular expression execution? Or you want tool that will create regular expression for you?

You can create expressions with C#, something like this usually does the trick:
Regex regex = new Regex(#"^[a-z | 0-9 | /,]*$", RegexOptions.IgnoreCase);
System.Console.Write("Enter Text");
String s = System.Console.ReadLine();
Match match = regex.Match(s);
if (match.Success == true)
{
System.Console.WriteLine("True");
}
else
{
System.Console.WriteLine("False");
}
System.Console.ReadLine();
You need to import the System.Text.RegularExpressions;
The regular expression above, accepts only numbers, letters (both upper and lower case) and the comma.
For a small introduction to Regular Expressions, I think that the book for MCTS 70-536 can be of a big help, I am pretty sure that you can either download it from somewhere or obtain a copy.
I am assuming that you never messed around with regular expressions in C#, hence I provided the code above.
Hope this helps.

Thank you, all..
[\w\s,]* works
Let me go through regular-expressions.info and come back if I need further support.
Let me try the C# code approach and come back if I need further support.
[This forum is awesome. Quality replies so qucik..]
Thanks again

(…) is denoting a grouping and not a character set that’s denoted with […]. So try this:
^[a-zA-Z0-9,]*$
This will only allow alphanumeric characters and the comma.