How can I check if the user has input a null or empty string in classic-asp? Right now I am have this code.
If Request.Form("productId") == "" Then
'my code here
End If
But its not working.
Classic ASP/VBScript uses one = to check for equality, not two. Another thing you may want to try is
If Request.Form("productid") = "" Then
Code here
End If
It is a mess. Here's what I have found ...
(1) To look for existence in the QS, use if IsEmpty(x)=false (ie, URL?x)
(2) To look for a value in the QS, look for if x <> "" (ie, URL?x=anything)
Good luck!
If IsEmpty(Request.Form("inputPhoneNo")) = False Then
response.Write"<script language=javaScript>alert('Blank Phone Number');</script>"
response.Write"<script language=javascript>history.back()</script>"
Else
End If
Related
I'm new to classic asp and I'm trying to figure out this simple if else statement.
For some reason it's just recognizing person 2 and not even trying person 1?
Any idea on how to fix? Thanks
This is my code:
<%
Dim GetPath
GetPath = request.ServerVariables("URL") & query_string
Dim page
page = "/products/dowlex/index.htm"
if GetPath = page then
varrecipient = "email1#email.com"
Response.Write("*Path = " & GetPath)
Response.Write("Person 1")
else
varrecipient = "email2#email.com"
Response.Write("*Path = " & GetPath)
Response.Write("Person 2")
end if
varFormName = "Contact"
varRHBusinessUnit = "businessname"
varLanguage = "ENGLISH"
varCourtesyResponse = "Y"
varRedirect = "#noredir?formRun=true"
varSubject = "Ask an Expert Form"
%>
I would compare the two strings based on the same case...
if UCase(GetPath) = UCase(page) then
And of course, if query_string ever has a value, then the 1st case will never be true.
The formatting of your statement is fine. If... Then... Else... End if.
I would do a Response.Write("GetPath") to see if you are getting back, what you think you should be.
I have a couple thoughts.
1) Can you use Response.Write to display what's in "GetPath" before the if statement? That might help you see what's going wrong!
2) Try changing the variable names. The editor is making "GetPath" blue, as though it's a reserved word. That might be messing things up.
I'm sorry guys, I messed up a small code and thats why it wasn't working.
I forgot to complete the full path of the site. Thanks for all your help and suggestions!
*Path = /plasticpipes/eu/products/dowlex/index.htm
*Page = /products/dowlex/index.htm
I want to convert the below string into classic asp code can any one help
email has some value but it is not going inside the Loop
Can any one help me.
If (IsEmpty(email) And IsNull(email)) Then
EndIf
The code looks like its VBScript already so there is no "conversion" needed, however the code is faulty. Should be:
If IsEmpty(email) Or IsNull(email) Then
End If
a variable cannot both be empty and contain a Null at the same time hence the orginal conditional expression was always false.
You could always try:
If IsEmpty(email) = True Then
'uninitialized
ElseIf IsNull(email) = True Then
'contains null value
ElseIf email = ""
'contains zero length string
Else
'Response.Write email
'MsgBox email
End If
In most cases I try to code so that the variable is guaranteed to be initialized so you don't need to run the IsEmpty check.
Option Explicit
Dim email
email = ""
Why don't you just check the length of the email variable:
If Len(Trim(email)) > 0 Then
Else
YOUR CODE HERE
End If
I've used both of the following Regular Expressions for testing for a valid email expression with ASP.NET validation controls. I was wondering which is the better expression from a performance standpoint, or if someone has better one.
- \w+([-+.']\w+)*#\w+([-.]\w+)*\.\w+([-.]\w+)*
- ^([0-9a-zA-Z]([-\.\w]*[0-9a-zA-Z])*#([0-9a-zA-Z][-\w]*[0-9a-zA-Z]\.)+[a-zA-Z]{2,9})$
I'm trying avoid the "exponentially slow expression" problem described on the BCL Team Blog.
UPDATE
Based on feedback I ended up creating a function to test if an email is valid:
Public Function IsValidEmail(ByVal emailString As String, Optional ByVal isRequired As Boolean = False) As Boolean
Dim emailSplit As String()
Dim isValid As Boolean = True
Dim localPart As String = String.Empty
Dim domainPart As String = String.Empty
Dim domainSplit As String()
Dim tld As String
If emailString.Length >= 80 Then
isValid = False
ElseIf emailString.Length > 0 And emailString.Length < 6 Then
'Email is too short
isValid = False
ElseIf emailString.Length > 0 Then
'Email is optional, only test value if provided
emailSplit = emailString.Split(CChar("#"))
If emailSplit.Count <> 2 Then
'Only 1 # should exist
isValid = False
Else
localPart = emailSplit(0)
domainPart = emailSplit(1)
End If
If isValid = False OrElse domainPart.Contains(".") = False Then
'Needs at least 1 period after #
isValid = False
Else
'Test Local-Part Length and Characters
If localPart.Length > 64 OrElse ValidateString(localPart, ValidateTests.EmailLocalPartSafeChars) = False OrElse _
localPart.StartsWith(".") OrElse localPart.EndsWith(".") OrElse localPart.Contains("..") Then
isValid = False
End If
'Validate Domain Name Portion of email address
If isValid = False OrElse _
ValidateString(domainPart, ValidateTests.HostNameChars) = False OrElse _
domainPart.StartsWith("-") OrElse domainPart.StartsWith(".") OrElse domainPart.Contains("..") Then
isValid = False
Else
domainSplit = domainPart.Split(CChar("."))
tld = domainSplit(UBound(domainSplit))
' Top Level Domains must be at least two characters
If tld.Length < 2 Then
isValid = False
End If
End If
End If
Else
'If no value is passed review if required
If isRequired = True Then
isValid = False
Else
isValid = True
End If
End If
Return isValid
End Function
Notes:
IsValidEmail is more restrictive about characters allowed then the RFC, but it doesn't test for all possible invalid uses of those characters
If you're wondering why this question is generating so little activity, it's because there are so many other issues that should be dealt with before you start thinking about performance. Foremost among those is whether you should be using regexes to validate email addresses at all--and the consensus is that you should not. It's much trickier than most people expect, and probably pointless anyway.
Another problem is that your two regexes vary hugely in the kinds of strings they can match. For example, the second one is anchored at both ends, but the first isn't; it would match ">>>>foo#bar.com<<<<" because there's something that looks like an email address embedded in it. Maybe the framework forces the regex to match the whole string, but if that's the case, why is the second one anchored?
Another difference is that the first regex uses \w throughout, while the second uses [0-9a-zA-Z] in many places. In most regex flavors, \w matches the underscore in addition to letters and digits, but in some (including .NET) it also matches letters and digits from every writing system known to Unicode.
There are many other differences, but that's academic; neither of those regexes is very good. See here for a good discussion of the topic, and a much better regex.
Getting back to the original question, I don't see a performance problem with either of those regexes. Aside from the nested-quantifiers anti-pattern cited in that BCL blog entry, you should also watch out for situations where two or more adjacent parts of the regex can match the same set of characters--for example,
([A-Za-z]+|\w+)#
There's nothing like that in either of the regexes you posted. Parts that are controlled by quantifiers are always broken up by other parts that aren't quantified. Both regexes will experience some avoidable backtracking, but there are many better reasons than performance to reject them.
EDIT: So the second regex is subject to catastrophic backtracking; I should have tested it thoroughly before shooting my mouth off. Taking a closer look at that regex, I don't see why you need the outer asterisk in the first part:
[0-9a-zA-Z]([-.\w]*[0-9a-zA-Z])*
All that bit does is make sure the first and last characters are alphanumeric while allowing some additional characters in between. This version does the same thing, but it fails much more quickly when no match is possible:
[0-9a-zA-Z][-.\w]*[0-9a-zA-Z]
That would probably suffice to eliminate the backtracking problem, but you could also make the part after the "#" more efficient by using an atomic group:
(?>(?:[0-9a-zA-Z][-\w]*[0-9a-zA-Z]\.)+)[a-zA-Z]{2,9}
In other words, if you've matched all you can of substrings that look like domain components with trailing dots, and the next part doesn't look like a TLD, don't bother backtracking. The first character you would have to give up is the final dot, and you know [a-zA-Z]{2,9} won't match that.
We use this RegEx which has been tested in-house against 1.5 million addresses. It correctly identifies better than 98% of ours, but there are some formats that I'm aware of that it would error on.
^([\w-]+(?:\.[\w-]+)*)#((?:[\w-]+\.)*\w[\w-]{0,66})\.([a-z]{2,6}(?:\.[a-z]{2})?)$
We also make sure that there are no EOL characters in the data since an EOL can fake out this RegEx. Our Function:
Public Function IsValidEmail(ByVal strEmail As String) As Boolean
' Check An eMail Address To Ensure That It Is Valid
Const cValidEmail = "^([\w-]+(?:\.[\w-]+)*)#((?:[\w-]+\.)*\w[\w-]{0,66})\.([a-z]{2,6}(?:\.[a-z]{2})?)$" ' 98% Of All Valid eMail Addresses
IsValidEmail = False
' Take Care Of Blanks, Nulls & EOLs
strEmail = Replace(Replace(Trim$(strEmail & " "), vbCr, ""), vbLf, "")
' Blank eMail Is Invalid
If strEmail = "" Then Exit Function
' RegEx Test The eMail Address
Dim regEx As New System.Text.RegularExpressions.Regex(cValidEmail)
IsValidEmail = regEx.IsMatch(strEmail)
End Function
I am a newbie, but I tried the following and it seemed to have limited the ".xxx" to only two occurrences or less, after the symbol '#'.
^([a-zA-Z0-9]+[a-zA-Z0-9._%-]*#(?:[a-zA-Z0-9-])+(\.+[a-zA-Z]{2,4}){1,2})$
Note: I had to substitute single '\' with double '\\' as I am using this reg expr in R.
These don't check for all allowable email addresses according to the email address RFC.
I let MS to do the work for me:
Public Function IsValidEmail(ByVal emailString As String) As Boolean
Dim retval As Boolean = True
Try
Dim address As New System.Net.Mail.MailAddress(emailString)
Catch ex As Exception
retval = False
End Try
Return retval
End Function
For server side validation, I found Phil Haack's solution to be one of the better ones. His attempt was to stick to the RFC:
string pattern = #"^(?!\.)(""([^""\r\\]|\\[""\r\\])*""|"
+ #"([-a-z0-9!#$%&'*+/=?^_`{|}~]|(?<!\.)\.)*)(?<!\.)"
+ #"#[a-z0-9][\w\.-]*[a-z0-9]\.[a-z][a-z\.]*[a-z]$";
Regex regex = new Regex(pattern, RegexOptions.IgnoreCase);
return regex.IsMatch(emailAddress);
Details:
http://blog.degree.no/2013/01/email-validation-finally-a-net-regular-expression-that-works/
Just to contribute, I am using this regex.
^([a-zA-Z0-9]+[a-zA-Z0-9._%-]*#(?:[a-zA-Z0-9-]+\.)+[a-zA-Z]{2,4})$
The thing about it is the specifications are changing with each domain extension that is introduced.
You sit here mod your regex, test, test, test, and more testing. You finally get what you "think" is accurate then the specification changes... You update your regex to account for what the new requirements are..
Then someone enters aa#aa.aa and you've done all that work for what? It walks through your fancy regex.. bummer!
You may as well just check for a single #, and a "." and move on. I assure you, you will not get someones email if they do not want to give it up. You'll get garbage or their hotmail account they never check and couldn't care less about.
I've seen in many cases this goes horribly wrong and a client calls up because their own email address is rejected because of a poorly crafted regex check. Which as mentioned shouldn't have even been attempted.
TextBox :-
<asp:TextBox ID="txtemail" runat="server" CssClass="form-control pantxt" Placeholder="Enter Email Address"></asp:TextBox>
Required Filed validator:
<asp:RequiredFieldValidator ID="RequiredFieldValidator9" runat="server" ControlToValidate="txtemail" ErrorMessage="Required"></asp:RequiredFieldValidator>
Regular Expression for email validation :
<asp:RegularExpressionValidator ID="validateemail" runat="server" ControlToValidate="txtemail" ValidationExpression="\w+([-+.']\w+)*#\w+([-.]\w+)*\.\w+([-.]\w+)*" ErrorMessage="Invalid Email"></asp:RegularExpressionValidator>
Use this regular expression for email validation in asp.net
I'm pretty sure the answer to this is no. I know that I can write
if lcase(strFoo) = lcase(request.querystring("x")) then...
or use inStr, but I just want to check there isn't some undocumented setting buried in the registry or somewhere that makes the content of VBScript strings behave consistently with the rest of the scripting language!
Thanks
Dan
There is a StrComp function which allows performing a case-insensitive comparison of two strings by passing vbTextCompare as the third argument. The main documentation doesn't make that obvious, but it is discussed in this Hey, Scripting Guy article.
For example:
If StrComp(strFoo, Request.QueryString("x"), vbTextCompare) = 0 Then ...
However, in practice, I use LCase or UCase way more than StrComp for case-insensitive string comparisons because it's more obvious to me.
No. Depending on the function the option may be there (InStr for example) as an optional parameter, but for just straight comparison, there is no global option.
One little known option that can be handy is if you have a list of strings and you want to see if a string is in that list:
Dim dicList : Set dicList = CreateObject("Scripting.Dictionary")
Dim strTest
dicList.CompareMode = 0 ' Binary ie case sensitive
dicList.Add "FOO", ""
dicList.Add "BAR", ""
dicList.Add "Wombat", ""
strTest = "foo"
WScript.Echo CStr(dicList.Exists(strTest))
Set dicList = CreateObject("Scripting.Dictionary")
dicList.CompareMode = 1 ' Text ie case insensitive
dicList.Add "FOO", ""
dicList.Add "BAR", ""
dicList.Add "Wombat", ""
strTest = "foo"
WScript.Echo CStr(dicList.Exists(strTest))
I doubt the existence of such an option since if there were something like that and you use it, you'll lose the ability to compare strings in a case sensitive manner.
For example, how can I run me.test below?
myvar = 'test'
me.myvar
ASP looks for the method "myvar" and doesn't find it. In PHP I could simply say $me->$myvar but ASP's syntax doesn't distinguish between variables and methods. Suggestions?
Closely related to this, is there a method_exists function in ASP Classic?
Thanks in advance!
EDIT: I'm writing a validation class and would like to call a list of methods via a pipe delimited string.
So for example, to validate a name field, I'd call:
validate("required|min_length(3)|max_length(100)|alphanumeric")
I like the idea of having a single line that shows all the ways a given field is being validated. And each pipe delimited section of the string is the name of a method.
If you have suggestions for a better setup, I'm all ears!
You can achieve this in VBScript by using the GetRef function:-
Function Test(val)
Test = val & " has been tested"
End Function
Dim myvar : myvar = "Test"
Dim x : Set x = GetRef(myvar)
Response.Write x("Thing")
Will send "Thing has been tested" to the client.
So here is your validate requirement using GetRef:-
validate("Hello World", "min_length(3)|max_length(10)|alphanumeric")
Function required(val)
required = val <> Empty
End Function
Function min_length(val, params)
min_length = Len(val) >= CInt(params(0))
End Function
Function max_length(val, params)
max_length = Len(val) <= CInt(params(0))
End Function
Function alphanumeric(val)
Dim rgx : Set rgx = New RegExp
rgx.Pattern = "^[A-Za-z0-9]+$"
alphanumeric = rgx.Test(val)
End Function
Function validate(val, criterion)
Dim arrCriterion : arrCriterion = Split(criterion, "|")
Dim criteria
validate = True
For Each criteria in arrCriterion
Dim paramListPos : paramListPos = InStr(criteria, "(")
If paramListPos = 0 Then
validate = GetRef(criteria)(val)
Else
Dim paramList
paramList = Split(Mid(criteria, paramListPos + 1, Len(criteria) - paramListPos - 1), ",")
criteria = Left(criteria, paramListPos - 1)
validate = GetRef(criteria)(val, paramList)
End If
If Not validate Then Exit For
Next
End Function
Having provided this I have to say though that if you are familiar with PHP then JScript would be a better choice on the server. In Javascript you can call a method like this:-
function test(val) { return val + " has been tested"; )
var myvar = "test"
Response.Write(this[myvar]("Thing"))
If you are talking about VBScript, it doesn't have that kind of functionality. (at least not to my knowledge) I might attempt it like this :
Select myvar
case "test":
test
case "anotherSub":
anotherSub
else
defaultSub
end select
It's been a while since I wrote VBScript (thank god), so I'm not sure how good my syntax is.
EDIT-Another strategy
Personally, I would do the above, for security reasons. But if you absolutely do not like it, then you may want to try using different languages on your page. I have in the past used both Javascript AND VBScript on my Classic ASP pages (both server side), and was able to call functions declared in the other language from my current language. This came in especially handy when I wanted to do something with Regular Expressions, but was in VBScript.
You can try something like
<script language="vbscript" runat="server">
MyJavascriptEval myvar
</script>
<script language="javascript" runat="server">
function MyJavascriptEval( myExpression)
{
eval(myExpression);
}
/* OR
function MyJavascriptEval( myExpression)
{
var f = new Function(myExpression);
f();
}
*/
</script>
I didn't test this in a classic ASP page, but I think it's close enough that it will work with minor tweaks.
Use the "Execute" statement in ASP/VBScript.
Execute "Response.Write ""hello world"""
PHP's ability to dynamically call or create functions are hacks that lead to poor programming practices. You need to explain what you're trying to accomplish (not how) and learn the correct way to code.
Just because you can do something, doesn't make it right or a good idea.
ASP does not support late binding in this manner. What are you trying to do, in a larger sense? Explain that, and someone can show you how to accomplish it in asp.
Additionally, you might consider "objectifying" the validation functionality. Making classes is possible (though not widely used) in VB Script.
<%
Class User
' declare private class variable
Private m_userName
' declare the property
Public Property Get UserName
UserName = m_userName
End Property
Public Property Let UserName (strUserName)
m_userName = strUserName
End Property
' declare and define the method
Sub DisplayUserName
Response.Write UserName
End Sub
End Class
%>