I was having an intro class at datacamp.com and ran into a problem.
Goal: find right emails using grep. "Right emails" defined by having an "#", end with ".edu").
Emails vector:
emails <- c("john.doe#ivyleague.edu", "education#world.gov", "dalai.lama#peace.org",
"invalid.edu", "quant#bigdatacollege.edu", "cookie.monster#sesame.tv")
I was thinking of
grep("#*\\.edu$",emails)
and it gave me
[1] 1 4 5
because I thought "*" matches "multiple characters". Later I found that it doesn't work like that.
Turned out the right code is
grep("#.*\\.edu$",emails)
I googled some documentation and only have a vague sense of how to get the correct answer. Can someone explain how exactly R match the right emails? Thanks a bunch!!
You've already been advised the using the asterisk quantifier wasn't giving you the specificity you needed, so use the "+" quantifier, which forces at least one such match. I decided to make the problem more complex by adding some where there were duplicated at-signs:
emails <- c("john.doe##ivyleague.edu", "education##world.gov", "dalai.lama#peace.org",
"invalid.edu", "quant#bigdatacollege.edu", "cookie.monster#sesame.tv")
grep( "^[^#]+#[^#]+\\.edu$", emails)
#[1] 5
That uses the regex character-class structure where items inside flankking square-brackets are taken as literals except when there is an initial up-caret ("^"), in which case it is the negation of the character class, i.e. in this case any character except "#". This will also exclude situations where the at-sign is the first character. Thanks to KonradRudolph who pointed out that adding "^" as the first character in the pattern (which signifies the point just before the first character of a potential match) would prevent allowing Items with an initial "##" from being matched.
Related
I have a dataframe that contains some cells with error messages as string. The strings come in the following forms:
ERROR-100_Data not found for ID "xxx"
ERROR-100_Data not found for id "xxx"
ERROR-101_Data not found for SUBID "yyy"
Data not found for ID "xxx"
Data not found for id "xxx"
I need to extract the number of the error (if it has one) and the GENERAL description, avoiding the specificity of the ID or SUBID. I have a function where I use the following regex expression:
sub(".*?ERROR-(.*?)for ID.*","\\1",df[,col1],sep="-")
This works only for the first case. Is there a way to obtain the following results using only one expression?
100_Data not found
100_Data not found
101_Data not found
Data not found
Data not found
We can use:
tsxt <- 'ERROR-100_Data not found for ID "xxx"'
gsub("\\sfor.*|ERROR-","",tsxt, perl=TRUE)
[1] "101_Data not found"
Or as suggested by #Jan anchor ERROR to make it more general:
gsub("\\sfor.*|^ERROR-","",tsxt, perl=TRUE)
You could use
^ERROR-|\sfor.+
which needs to be replaced by an empty string, see a demo on regex101.com.
Use this regex:
.*?(?:ERROR-)?(.*?)\s+for\s+(?:[A-Z]*)?ID
This makes sure that ERROR- part is optional, then captures everything before for ...ID is encountered (case-insensitively). The only capturing group contains the desired text, which can then be used directly without needing any substitution.
The first and the third groups in this regex are non-capture groups, i.e., they'll match their content but not capture it for further usage, thus leaving us with only one capture group (the middle one). This is done since the OP isn't interested in the data they refer to. Making them as capture groups would have meant three results, and the post-processing would have involved hard-coding the usage of second group only (the middle one), without ever having to deal with the other two.
Demo
I have been mucking around with regex strings and strsplit but can't figure out how to solve my problem.
I have a collection of html documents that will always contain the phrase "people own these". I want to extract the number immediately preceding this phrase. i.e. '732,234 people own these' - I'm hoping to capture the number 732,234 (including the comma, though I don't care if it's removed).
The number and phrase are always surrounded by a . I tried using Xpath but that seemed even harder than a regex expression. Any help or advice is greatly appreciated!
example string: >742,811 people own these<
-> 742,811
Could you please try following.
val <- "742,811 people own these"
gsub(' [a-zA-Z]+',"",val)
Output will be as follows.
[1] "742,811"
Explanation: using gsub(global substitution) function of R here. Putting condition here where it should replace all occurrences of space with small or capital alphabets with NULL for variable val.
Try using str_extract_all from the stringr library:
str_extract_all(data, "\\d{1,3}(?:,\\d{3})*(?:\\.\\d+)?(?= people own these)")
I'm trying to extract UK postcodes from address strings in R, using the regular expression provided by the UK government here.
Here is my function:
address_to_postcode <- function(addresses) {
# 1. Convert addresses to upper case
addresses = toupper(addresses)
# 2. Regular expression for UK postcodes:
pcd_regex = "[Gg][Ii][Rr] 0[Aa]{2})|((([A-Za-z][0-9]{1,2})|(([A-Za-z][A-Ha-hJ-Yj-y][0-9]{1,2})|(([A-Za-z][0-9][A-Za-z])|([A-Za-z][A-Ha-hJ-Yj-y][0-9]?[A-Za-z])))) {0,1}[0-9][A-Za-z]{2})"
# 3. Check if a postcode is present in each address or not (return TRUE if present, else FALSE)
present <- grepl(pcd_regex, addresses)
# 4. Extract postcodes matching the regular expression for a valid UK postcode
postcodes <- regmatches(addresses, regexpr(pcd_regex, addresses))
# 5. Return NA where an address does not contain a (valid format) UK postcode
postcodes_out <- list()
postcodes_out[present] <- postcodes
postcodes_out[!present] <- NA
# 6. Return the results in a vector (should be same length as input vector)
return(do.call(c, postcodes_out))
}
According to the guidance document, the logic this regular expression looks for is as follows:
"GIR 0AA" OR One letter followed by either one or two numbers OR One letter followed by a second letter that must be one of
ABCDEFGHJ KLMNOPQRSTUVWXY (i.e..not I) and then followed by either one
or two numbers OR One letter followed by one number and then another
letter OR A two part post code where the first part must be One letter
followed by a second letter that must be one of ABCDEFGH
JKLMNOPQRSTUVWXY (i.e..not I) and then followed by one number and
optionally a further letter after that AND The second part (separated
by a space from the first part) must be One number followed by two
letters. A combination of upper and lower case characters is allowed.
Note: the length is determined by the regular expression and is
between 2 and 8 characters.
My problem is that this logic is not completely preserved when using the regular expression without the ^ and $ anchors (as I have to do in this scenario because the postcode could be anywhere within the address strings); what I'm struggling with is how to preserve the order and number of characters for each segment in a partial (as opposed to complete) string match.
Consider the following example:
> address_to_postcode("1A noplace road, random city, NR1 2PK, UK")
[1] "NR1 2PK"
According to the logic in the guideline, the second letter in the postcode cannot be 'z' (and there are some other exclusions too); however look what happens when I add a 'z':
> address_to_postcode("1A noplace road, random city, NZ1 2PK, UK")
[1] "Z1 2PK"
... whereas in this case I would expect the output to be NA.
Adding the anchors (for a different usage case) doesn't seem to help as the 'z' is still accepted even though it is in the wrong place:
> grepl("^[Gg][Ii][Rr] 0[Aa]{2})|((([A-Za-z][0-9]{1,2})|(([A-Za-z][A-Ha-hJ-Yj-y][0-9]{1,2})|(([A-Za-z][0-9][A-Za-z])|([A-Za-z][A-Ha-hJ-Yj-y][0-9]?[A-Za-z])))) {0,1}[0-9][A-Za-z]{2})$", "NZ1 2PK")
[1] TRUE
Two questions:
Have I misunderstood the logic of the regular expression and
If not, how can I correct it (i.e. why aren't the specified letter
and character ranges exclusive to their position within the regular expression)?
Edit
Since posting this answer, I dug deeper into the UK government's regex and found even more problems. I posted another answer here that describes all the issues and provides alternatives to their poorly formatted regex.
Note
Please note that I'm posting the raw regex here. You'll need to escape certain characters (like backslashes \) when porting to r.
Issues
You have many issues here, all of which are caused by whoever created the document you're retrieving your regex from or the coder that created it.
1. The space character
My guess is that when you copied the regular expression from the link you provided it converted the space character into a newline character and you removed it (that's exactly what I did at first). You need to, instead, change it to a space character.
^([Gg][Ii][Rr] 0[Aa]{2})|((([A-Za-z][0-9]{1,2})|(([A-Za-z][A-Ha-hJ-Yj-y][0-9]{1,2})|(([AZa-z][0-9][A-Za-z])|([A-Za-z][A-Ha-hJ-Yj-y][0-9]?[A-Za-z])))) [0-9][A-Za-z]{2})$
here ^
2. Boundaries
You need to remove the anchors ^ and $ as these indicate start and end of line. Instead, wrap your regex in (?:) and place a \b (word boundary) on either end as the following shows. In fact, the regex in the documentation is incorrect (see Side note for more information) as it will fail to anchor the pattern properly.
See regex in use here
\b(?:([Gg][Ii][Rr] 0[Aa]{2})|((([A-Za-z][0-9]{1,2})|(([A-Za-z][A-Ha-hJ-Yj-y][0-9]{1,2})|(([AZa-z][0-9][A-Za-z])|([A-Za-z][A-Ha-hJ-Yj-y][0-9]?[A-Za-z])))) [0-9][A-Za-z]{2}))\b
^^^^^ ^^^
3. Character class oversight
There's a missing - in the character class as pointed out by #deadcrab in his answer here.
\b(?:([Gg][Ii][Rr] 0[Aa]{2})|((([A-Za-z][0-9]{1,2})|(([A-Za-z][A-Ha-hJ-Yj-y][0-9]{1,2})|(([A-Za-z][0-9][A-Za-z])|([A-Za-z][A-Ha-hJ-Yj-y][0-9]?[A-Za-z])))) [0-9][A-Za-z]{2}))\b
^
4. They made the wrong character class optional!
In the documentation it clearly states:
A two part post code where the first part must be:
One letter followed by a second letter that must be one of ABCDEFGHJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXY (i.e..not I) and then followed by one number and optionally a further letter after that
They made the wrong character class optional!
\b(?:([Gg][Ii][Rr] 0[Aa]{2})|((([A-Za-z][0-9]{1,2})|(([A-Za-z][A-Ha-hJ-Yj-y][0-9]{1,2})|(([A-Za-z][0-9][A-Za-z])|([A-Za-z][A-Ha-hJ-Yj-y][0-9]?[A-Za-z])))) [0-9][A-Za-z]{2}))\b
^^^^^^
it should be this one ^^^^^^^^
5. The whole thing is just awful...
There are so many things wrong with this regex that I just decided to rewrite it. It can very easily be simplified to perform a fraction of the steps it currently takes to match text.
\b(?:[A-Za-z][A-HJ-Ya-hj-y]?[0-9][0-9A-Za-z]? [0-9][A-Za-z]{2}|[Gg][Ii][Rr] 0[Aa]{2})\b
Answer
As mentioned in the comments below my answer, some postcodes are missing the space character. For missing spaces in the postcodes (e.g. NR12PK), simply add a ? after the spaces as shown in the regex below:
\b(?:[A-Za-z][A-HJ-Ya-hj-y]?[0-9][0-9A-Za-z]? ?[0-9][A-Za-z]{2}|[Gg][Ii][Rr] ?0[Aa]{2})\b
^^ ^^
You may also shorten the regex above with the following and use the case-insensitive flag (ignore.case(pattern) or ignore_case = TRUE in r, depending on the method used.):
\b(?:[A-Z][A-HJ-Y]?[0-9][0-9A-Z]? ?[0-9][A-Z]{2}|GIR ?0A{2})\b
Note
Please note that regular expressions only validate the possible format(s) of a string and cannot actually identify whether or not a postcode legitimately exists. For this, you should use an API. There are also some edge-cases where this regex will not properly match valid postcodes. For a list of these postcodes, please see this Wikipedia article.
The regex below additionally matches the following (make it case-insensitive to match lowercase variants as well):
British Overseas Territories
British Forces Post Office
Although they've recently changed it to align with the British postcode system to BF, followed by a number (starting with BF1), they're considered optional alternative postcodes
Special cases outlined in that article (as well as SAN TA1 - a valid postcode for Santa!)
See this regex in use here.
\b(?:(?:[A-Z][A-HJ-Y]?[0-9][0-9A-Z]?|ASCN|STHL|TDCU|BBND|[BFS]IQ{2}|GX11|PCRN|TKCA) ?[0-9][A-Z]{2}|GIR ?0A{2}|SAN ?TA1|AI-?[0-9]{4}|BFPO[ -]?[0-9]{2,3}|MSR[ -]?1(?:1[12]|[23][135])0|VG[ -]?11[1-6]0|[A-Z]{2} ? [0-9]{2}|KY[1-3][ -]?[0-2][0-9]{3})\b
I would also recommend anyone implementing this answer to read this StackOverflow question titled UK Postcode Regex (Comprehensive).
Side note
The documentation you linked to (Bulk Data Transfer: Additional Validation for CAS Upload - Section 3. UK Postcode Regular Expression) actually has an improperly written regular expression.
As mentioned in the Issues section, they should have:
Wrapped the entire expression in (?:) and placed the anchors around the non-capturing group. Their regular expression, as it stands, will fail in for some cases as seen here.
The regular expression is also missing - in one of the character classes
It also made the wrong character class optional.
here is my regular expression
txt="0288, Bishopsgate, London Borough of Tower Hamlets, London, Greater London, England, EC2M 4QP, United Kingdom"
matches=re.findall(r'[A-Z]{1,2}[0-9][A-Z0-9]? [0-9][ABD-HJLNP-UW-Z]{2}', txt)
I have been using strapplyc in R to select different portions of a string that match one particular set of criteria. These have worked successfully until I found a portion of the string where the required portion could be defined one of two ways.
Here is an example of the string which is liberally sprinkled with \t:
\t\t\tsome words here\t\t\tDefect: some more words here Action: more words
I can write the strapply statement to capture the text between Defect: and the start of Action:
strapplyc(record[i], "Defect:(.*?)Action")
This works and selects the chosen text between Defect: and Action. In some cases there is no action section to the string and I've used the following code to capture these cases.
strapplyc(record[i], "Defect:(.*?)$")
What I have been trying to do is capture the text that either ends with Action, or with the end of the string (using $).
This is the bit that keeps failing. It returns nothing for either option. Here is my failing code:
strapplyc(record[i], "Defect:(.*?)Action|$")
Any idea where I'm going wrong, or a better solution would be much appreciated.
If you are up for a more efficient solution, you could drop the .*? matching and unroll your pattern like:
Defect:((?:[^A]+|A(?!ction))*)
This matches Defect: followed by any amount of characters that are not an A or are an A and not followed by ction. This avoids the expanding that is needed for the lazy dot matching. It will work for both ways, as it does stop matching when it hits Action or the end of your string.
As suggested by Wiktor, you can also use
Defect:([^A]*(?:A(?!ction)[^A]*)*)
Which is a little bit faster when there are many As in the string.
You might want to consider to use A(?!ction:) or A(?!ction\s*:), to avoid false early matches.
The alternation operator | is the regex operator with the lowest precedence. That means the regex Defect:(.*?)Action|$ is actually a combination of Defect:(.*?)Action and $ - since an empty string is a valid match for $, your regex returns the empty string.
To solve that, you should combine the regexes Defect:(.*?)Action and Defect:(.*?)$ with an OR:
Defect:(.*?)Action|Defect:(.*?)$
Or you can enclose Action|$ in a group as Sebastian Proske said in the comments:
Defect:(.*?)(?:Action|$)
Using ASP.NET syntax for the RegularExpressionValidator control, how do you specify restriction of two consecutive characters, say character 'x'?
You can provide a regex like the following:
(\\w)\\1+
(\\w) will match any word character, and \\1+ will match whatever character was matched with (\\w).
I do not have access to asp.net at the moment, but take this console app as an example:
Console.WriteLine(regex.IsMatch("hello") ? "Not valid" : "Valid"); // Hello contains to consecutive l:s, hence not valid
Console.WriteLine(regex.IsMatch("Bar") ? "Not valid" : "Valid"); // Bar does not contain any consecutive characters, so it's valid
Alexn is right, this is the way you match consecutive characters with a regex, i.e. (a)\1 matches aa.
However, I think this is a case of everything looking like a nail when you're holding a hammer. I would not use regex to validate this input. Rather, I suggest validating this in code (just looping through the string, comparing str[i] and str[i-1], checking for this condition).
This should work:
^((?<char>\w)(?!\k<char>))*$
It matches abc, but not abbc.
The key is to use so called "zero-width negative lookahead assertion" (syntax: (?! subexpression)).
Here we make sure that a group matched with (?<char>\w) is not followed by itself (expressed with (?!\k<char>)).
Note that \w can be replaced with any valid set of characters (\w does not match white-spaces characters).
You can also do it without named group (note that the referenced group has number 2):
^((\w)(?!\2))*$
And its important to start with ^ and end with $ to match the whole text.
If you want to only exclude text with consecutive x characters, you may use this
^((?<char>x)(?!\k<char>)|[^x\W])*$
or without backreferences
^(x(?!x)|[^x\W])*$
All syntax elements for .NET Framework Regular Expressions are explained here.
You can use a regex to validate what's wrong as well as what's right of course. The regex (.)\1 will match any two consecutive characters, so you can just reject any input that gives an IsValid result to that. If this is the only validation you need, I think this way is far easier than trying to come up with a regex to validate correct input instead.