Regular expression to compare numbers

I have a method
compare(Object value, String searchTxt);
The value can either be a Number, Date, String.
The searchTxt can have values to compare Strings, Dates, Numbers. It also can have logical comparison operators like =, !=, >, <, >=, <= eg.
compare(numValue, "> 1000 <= 2000)
compare(dateValue, "> 2006/12/12 <= 2007/01/25)
compare(stringValue, "> abc <= xyz )
Can I have some regular expression to control this comparision and make my life little easier. Because spliting the string and checking for all possible options can be a tedious job.
Peace n Regards

No. The searchTxt can have values like
"> 1000 <= 2000"
"> 2006/12/12 <= 2007/01/25"
"> abc <= xyz"
But I can check for the instanceof for the "value" and know that the searchTxt contains logical opearators plus (only Number or only Date or only String).
The real requirement is to comare the "value" according to the search string.
Say for eg:
if the method compare is invoked as compare(200, ">=100<500") it should return true
if the method compare is invoked as compare("xyz", ">=abc<xxx") it should return false
and so on...

Similar Messages

Phone number with regular expression

Hi,
is it possible to use regular expression for phone numbers?
I want to create contacts for companies with several direct dial in numbers. My idea is to make one contact for the company itself with the base telephone number and a regular expression like an asterisk and separate contacts for person inside the company containing the direct dial in number.

but a third-party app could not tell me who (anybody from the company or a special direct dial in number) is calling me at this very moment. So sounds like no way anyhow.

Using Regular Expressions in Numbers 09?

Is there any way to use regular expressions in Numbers 09 in Find & Replace?

kilowattradio wrote:
Is there any way to use regular expressions in Numbers 09 in Find & Replace?
NO !
_Go to "Provide Numbers Feedback" in the "Numbers" menu_, describe what you wish.
Then, cross your fingers, and wait _at least_ for iWork'10
Yvan KOENIG (VALLAURIS, France) vendredi 25 septembre 2009 14:49:49

Field validation regular expression to accept only numbers

Hello.
I would like to have a field validation regular expression to accept only numbers - no characters. The list of pre-packaged regular expressions that are included with ApEx does not contain this and I am not a very good regular expression writer. Can anyone help?
Thanks!
Boris

Under the Regular Expression validation all you need to have is:
^[[:digit:]]$For the email address it just depends how detailed you want it:
^((?>[a-zA-Z\d!#$%&'*+\-/=?^_`{|}~]+\x20*|"((?=[\x01-\x7f])[^"\\]|\\[\x01-\x7f])*"\x20*)*(?<angle><))?((?!\.)(?>\.?[a-zA-Z\d!#$%&'*+\-/=?^_`{|}~]+)+|"((?=[\x01-\x7f])[^"\\]|\\[\x01-\x7f])*")@(((?!-)[a-zA-Z\d\-]+(?<!-)\.)+[a-zA-Z]{2,}|\[(((?(?<!\[)\.)(25[0-5]|2[0-4]\d|[01]?\d?\d)){4}|[a-zA-Z\d\-]*[a-zA-Z\d]:((?=[\x01-\x7f])[^\\\[\]]|\\[\x01-\x7f])+)\])(?(angle)>)$or...
[\w-]+@([\w-]+\.)+[\w-]+Hope these help
Edited by: MikesHotRod on Sep 3, 2008 12:40 PM

Unique regular expression to check if a string contains letters and numbers

Hi all,
How can I verify if a string contains numbers AND letters using a regular expression only?
I can do that with using 3 different expressions ([0-9],[a-z],[A-Z]) but is there a unique regular expression to do that?
Thanks all

Darin.K wrote:
Missed the requirements:
single regex:
^([[:alpha:]]+[[:digit:]]+|[[:digit:]]+[[:alpha:]])[[:alnum:]]*$
You either have 1 or more digits followed by 1 or more letters or 1 or more letters followed by 1 or more digits. Once that is out of the way, the rest of the string must be all alphanumerics. The ^ and $ make sure the whole string is included in the match.
(I have not tested this at all, just typed it up hopefully I got all the brackets in the right place).
I think you just made my point. TWICE. While the lex class would be much more readable as a ring.... I know all my brackets are in the correct places and don't need to hope.
Jeff

Regular expression: numbers and letters allowed

How can i determine best way following: input string may contain only numbers and letters, letters can be from any alphabet.
Examples:
'123aBc' - correct, only numbers and letters
'123 aBc' - wrong, contains space
'123,aBc' - wrong, contains comma
'öäüõ' - correct, contains letters from Estonian alphabet.
'abc' - correct, contains letters from english alphabet.
I think i should use function "regexp_like" for that, because LIKE-operator can't do such things, correct?
How i should write the regular expression then? I'm new to reg expressions.

CharlesRoos wrote:
How can i determine best way following: input string may contain only numbers and letters, letters can be from any alphabet.
Examples:
'123aBc' - correct, only numbers and letters
'123 aBc' - wrong, contains space
'123,aBc' - wrong, contains comma
'öäüõ' - correct, contains letters from Estonian alphabet.
'abc' - correct, contains letters from english alphabet.
I think i should use function "regexp_like" for that, because LIKE-operator can't do such things, correct?
How i should write the regular expression then? I'm new to reg expressions.I'm not too hot on the foreign alphabets, but something like:
regexp_like(txt, '^[[:alpha:][:digit:]]*$')should do it I think.

Regular Expressions and Numbers in Strings

Looking for someone who has had experience in using Regular Expressions in the Classification Rule Builder.
We have an eVar that is collecting the number of search results in this fashion:
<Total Results>_<# of Item 1>_<# of Item 2>_<# of Item 3>_<# of Item 4>
Example output would look like this:
150_50_0_25_75
What we've done is initially create a Regular Expression that looks like this:
^(.+)\_(.+)\_(.+)\_(.+)\_(.+)$
The problem is, it appears in situations where the output contains a zero in one of the slots, the value is ignored and it receives the value in the next place over. Using the example output shown above, I would end up with values like this:
$0 150_50_0_25_75
$1 150
$2 50
$3 25
$4 75
$5 {null}
Here's the weird part. When I perform a test of a single record, it appears like it will work just fine, but when it actually runs in Omniture, it's not working as expected. Here's something else I'd like to know if it's possible to address. The five-place string is only the newest iteration of this approach. In the past, we started out with a two-place version, then three-place and then four. Any recommendations for handling all scenarios?
Any and all advice is welcome. Thanks in advance!

Doing some playing around on rubular.com and thinking the Regular Expression should be build this way instead:
^(\d+)\_(\d+)\_(\d+)\_(\d+)\_(\d+)$
Again, still looking for any additional guidance from more experienced individuals. Thanks!

Introduction to regular expressions ...

I'm well aware that there are already some articles on that topic, some people asked me to share some of my knowledge on this topic. Please take a look at this first part and let me know if you find this useful. If yes, I'm going to continue on writing more parts using more and more complicated expressions - if you have questions or problems that you think could be solved through regular expression, please post them.
Introduction
Oracle has always provided some character/string functions in its PL/SQL command set, such as SUBSTR, REPLACE or TRANSLATE. With 10g, Oracle finally gave us, the users, the developers and of course the DBAs regular expressions. However, regular expressions, due to their sometimes cryptic rules, seem to be overlooked quite often, despite the existence of some very interesing use cases. Beeing one of the advocates of regular expression, I thought I'll give the interested audience an introduction to these new functions in several installments.
Having fun with regular expressions - Part 1
Oracle offers the use of regular expression through several functions: REGEXP_INSTR, REGEXP_SUBSTR, REGEXP_REPLACE and REGEXP_LIKE. The second part of each function already gives away its purpose: INSTR for finding a position inside a string, SUBSTR for extracting a part of a string, REPLACE for replacing parts of a string. REGEXP_LIKE is a special case since it could be compared to the LIKE operator and is therefore usually used in comparisons like IF statements or WHERE clauses.
Regular expressions excel, in my opinion, in search and extraction of strings, using that for finding or replacing certain strings or check for certain formatting criterias. They're not very good at formatting strings itself, except for some special cases I'm going to demonstrate.
If you're not familiar with regular expression, you should take a look at the definition in Oracle's user guide Using Regular Expressions With Oracle Database, and please note that there have been some changes and advancements in 10g2. I'll provide examples, that should work on both versions.
Some of you probably already encountered this problem: checking a number inside a string, because, for whatever reason, a column was defined as VARCHAR2 and not as NUMBER as one would have expected.
Let's check for all rows where column col1 does NOT include an unsigned integer. I'll use this SELECT for demonstrating different values and search patterns:
WITH t AS (SELECT '456' col1
             FROM dual
            UNION
           SELECT '123x'
             FROM dual
            UNION
           SELECT 'x123'
             FROM dual
            UNION
           SELECT 'y'
             FROM dual
            UNION
           SELECT '+789'
             FROM dual
            UNION
           SELECT '-789'
             FROM dual
            UNION
           SELECT '159-'
             FROM dual
            UNION
           SELECT '-1-'
             FROM dual
SELECT t.col1
FROM t
WHERE NOT REGEXP_LIKE(t.col1, '^[0-9]+$')
;Let's take a look at the 2nd argument of this REGEXP function: '^[0-9]+$'. Translated it would mean: start at the beginning of the string, check if there's one or more characters in the range between '0' and '9' (also called a matching character list) until the end of this string. "^", "[", "]", "+", "$" are all Metacharacters.
To understand regular expressions, you have to "think" in regular expressions. Each regular expression tries to "fit" an available string into its pattern and returns a result beeing successful or not, depending on the function. The "art" of using regular expressions is to construct the right search pattern for a certain task. Using functions like TRANSLATE or REPLACE did already teach you using search patterns, regular expressions are just an extension to this paradigma. Another side note: most of the search patterns are placeholders for single characters, not strings.
I'll take this example a bit further. What would happen if we would remove the "$" in our example? "$" means: (until the) end of a string. Without this, this expression would only search digits from the beginning until it encounters either another character or the end of the string. So this time, '123x' would be removed from the SELECTION since it does fit into the pattern.
Another change: we will keep the "$" but remove the "^". This character has several meanings, but in this case it declares: (start from the) beginning of a string. Without it, the function will search for a part of a string that has only digits until the end of the searched string. 'x123' would now be removed from our selection.
Now there's a question: what happens if I remove both, "^" and "$"? Well, just think about it. We now ask to find any string that contains at least one or more digits, so both '123x' and 'x123' will not show up in the result.
So what if I want to look for signed integer, since "+" is also used for a search expression. Escaping is the name of the game. We'll just use '^\+[0-9]+$' Did you notice the "\" before the first "+"? This is now a search pattern for the plus sign.
Should signed integers include negative numbers as well? Of course they should, and I'll once again use a matching character list. In this list, I don't need to do escaping, although it is possible. The result string would now look like this: '^[+-]?[0-9]+$'. Did you notice the "?"? This is another metacharacter that changes the placeholder for plus and minus to an optional placeholder, which means: if there's a "+" or "-", that's ok, if there's none, that's also ok. Only if there's a different character, then again the search pattern will fail.
Addendum: From this on, I found a mistake in my examples. If you would have tested my old examples with test data that would have included multiple signs strings, like "--", "-+", "++", they would have been filtered by the SELECT statement. I mistakenly used the "*" instead of the "?" operator. The reason why this is a bad idea, can also be found in the user guide: the "*" meta character is defined as 0 to multiple occurrences.
Looking at the values, one could ask the question: what about the integers with a trailing sign? Quite simple, right? Let's just add another '[+-] and the search pattern would look like this: '^[+-]?[0-9]+[+-]?$'.
Wait a minute, what happened to the row with the column value "-1-"?
You probably already guessed it: the new pattern qualifies this one also as a valid string. I could now split this pattern into several conditions combined through a logical OR, but there's something even better: a logical OR inside the regular expression. It's symbol is "|", the pipe sign.
Changing the search pattern again to something like this '^[+-]?[0-9]+$|^[0-9]+[+-]?$' [1] would return now the "-1-" value. Do I have to duplicate the same elements like "^" and "$", what about more complicated, repeating elements in future examples? That's where subexpressions/grouping comes into play. If I want only certain parts of the search pattern using an OR operator, we can put those inside round brackets. '^([+-]?[0-9]+|[0-9]+[+-]?)$' serves the same purpose and allows for further checks without duplicating the whole pattern.
Now looking for integers is nice, but what about decimal numbers? Those may be a bit more complicated, but all I have to do is again to think in (meta) characters. I'll just use an example where the decimal point is represented by ".", which again needs escaping, since it's also the place holder in regular expressions for "any character".
Valid decimals in my example would be ".0", "0.0", "0.", "0" (integer of course) but not ".". If you want, you can test it with the TO_NUMBER function. Finding such an unsigned decimal number could then be formulated like this: from the beginning of a string we will either allow a decimal point plus any number of digits OR at least one digits plus an optional decimal point followed by optional any number of digits. Think about it for a minute, how would you formulate such a search pattern?
Compare your solution to this one:
'^(\.[0-9]+|[0-9]+(\.[0-9]*)?)$'
Addendum: Here I have to use both "?" and "*" to make sure, that I can have 0 to many digits after the decimal point, but only 0 to 1 occurrence of this substrings. Otherwise, strings like "1.9.9.9" would be possible, if I would write it like this:
'^(\.[0-9]+|[0-9]+(\.[0-9]*)*)$'Some of you now might say: Hey, what about signed decimal numbers? You could of course combine all the ideas so far and you will end up with a very long and almost unreadable search pattern, or you start combining several regular expression functions. Think about it: Why put all the search patterns into one function? Why not split those into several steps like "check for a valid decimal" and "check for sign".
I'll just use another SELECT to show what I want to do:
WITH t AS (SELECT '0' col1
             FROM dual
            UNION
           SELECT '0.'
             FROM dual
            UNION
           SELECT '.0'
             FROM dual
            UNION
           SELECT '0.0'
             FROM dual
            UNION
           SELECT '-1.0'
             FROM dual
            UNION
           SELECT '.1-'
             FROM dual
            UNION
           SELECT '.'
             FROM dual
            UNION
           SELECT '-1.1-'
             FROM dual
SELECT t.*
FROM t
;From this select, the only rows I need to find are those with the column values "." and "-1.1-". I'll start this with a check for valid signs. Since I want to combine this with the check for valid decimals, I'll first try to extract a substring with valid signs through the REGEXP_SUBSTR function:
NVL(REGEXP_SUBSTR(t.col1, '^([+-]?[^+-]+|[^+-]+[+-]?)$'), ' ')Remember the OR operator and the matching character collections? But several "^"? Some of the meta characters inside a search pattern can have different meanings, depending on their positions and combination with other meta characters. In this case, the pattern translates into: from the beginning of the string search for "+" or "-" followed by at least another character that is not "+" or "-". The second pattern after the "|" OR operator does the same for a sign at the end of the string.
This only checks for a sign but not if there also only digits and a decimal point inside the string. If the search string fails, for example when we have more than one sign like in the "-1.1-", the function returns NULL. NULL and LIKE don't go together very well, so we'll just add NVL with a default value that tells the LIKE to ignore this string, in this case a space.
All we have to do now is to combine the check for the sign and the check for a valid decimal number, but don't forget an option for the signs at the beginning or end of the string, otherwise your second check will fail on the signed decimals. Are you ready?
Does your solution look a bit like this?
WHERE NOT REGEXP_LIKE(NVL(REGEXP_SUBSTR(t.col1,
                           '^([+-]?[^+-]+|[^+-]+[+-]?)$'),
                       '^[+-]?(\.[0-9]+|[0-9]+(\.[0-9]*)?)[+-]?$'
                      )Now the optional sign checks in the REGEXP_LIKE argument can be added to both ends, since the SUBSTR won't allow any string with signs on both ends. Thinking in regular expression again.
Continued in Introduction to regular expressions ... continued.
C.
Fixed some embarrassing typos ... and mistakes.
cd

Excellent write up CD. Very nice indeed. Hopefully you'll be completing parts 2 and 3 some time soon. And with any luck, your article will encourage others to do the same....I know there's a few I'd like to see and a few I'd like to have a go at writing too :-)

Introduction to regular expressions ... continued.

After some very positive feedback from Introduction to regular expressions ... I'm now continuing on this topic for the interested audience. As always, if you have questions or problems that you think could be solved through regular expression, please post them.
Having fun with regular expressions - Part 2
Finishing my example with decimal numbers, I thought about a method to test regular expressions. A question from another user who was looking for a way to show all possible combinations inspired me in writing a small package.
CREATE OR REPLACE PACKAGE regex_utils AS
-- Regular Expression Utilities
-- Version 0.1
TYPE t_outrec IS RECORD(
    data VARCHAR2(255)
TYPE t_outtab IS TABLE OF t_outrec;
FUNCTION gen_data(
    p_charset IN VARCHAR2 -- character set that is used for generation
, p_length IN NUMBER   -- length of the generated
) RETURN t_outtab PIPELINED;
END regex_utils;
CREATE OR REPLACE PACKAGE BODY regex_utils AS
-- FUNCTION gen_data returns a collection of generated varchar2 elements
FUNCTION gen_data(
    p_charset IN VARCHAR2 -- character set that is used for generation
, p_length IN NUMBER   -- length of the generated
) RETURN t_outtab PIPELINED
IS
    TYPE t_counter IS TABLE OF PLS_INTEGER INDEX BY PLS_INTEGER;
    v_counter t_counter;
    v_exit    BOOLEAN;
    v_string VARCHAR2(255);
    v_outrec t_outrec;
BEGIN
    FOR max_length IN 1..p_length
    LOOP
      -- init counter loop
      FOR i IN 1..max_length
      LOOP
        v_counter(i) := 1;
      END LOOP;
      -- start data generation loop
      v_exit := FALSE;
      WHILE NOT v_exit
      LOOP
        -- start generation
        v_string := '';
        FOR i IN 1..max_length
        LOOP
          v_string := v_string || SUBSTR(p_charset, v_counter(i), 1);
        END LOOP;
        -- set outgoing record
        v_outrec.data := v_string;
        -- now pipe the result
        PIPE ROW(v_outrec);
        -- increment loop
        <<inc_loop>>
        FOR i IN REVERSE 1..max_length
        LOOP
          v_counter(i) := v_counter(i) + 1;
          IF v_counter(i) > LENGTH(p_charset) THEN
             IF i > 1 THEN
                v_counter(i) := 1;
             ELSE
                v_exit := TRUE;
             END IF;
          ELSE
             -- no further processing required
             EXIT inc_loop;
          END IF;
        END LOOP;
      END LOOP;
    END LOOP;
END gen_data;
END regex_utils;
/This package is a brute force string generator using all possible combinations of a characters in a string up to a maximum length. Together with the regular expressions, I can now show what combinations my solution would allow to pass. But see for yourself:
SELECT *
FROM (SELECT data col1
          FROM TABLE(regex_utils.gen_data('+-.0', 5))
       ) t
WHERE REGEXP_LIKE(NVL(REGEXP_SUBSTR(t.col1,
                                     '^([+-]?[^+-]+|[^+-]+[+-]?)$'
                   '^[+-]?(\.[0-9]+|[0-9]+(\.[0-9]*)?)[+-]?$'
;You will see some results, which are perfectly valid for my definition of decimal numbers but haven't been mentioned, like '000' or '+.00'. From now on I will also use this package to verify the solutions I'll present to you and hopefully reduce my share of typos.
Counting and finding certain characters or words in a string can be a tedious task. I'll show you how it's done with regular expressions. I'll start with an easy example, count all spaces in the string "Having fun with regular expressions.":
SELECT NVL(LENGTH(REGEXP_REPLACE('Having fun with regular expressions', '[^ ]')), 0)
FROM dual
;No surprise there. I'm replacing all characters except spaces with a null string. Since REGEXP_REPLACE assumes a NULL string as replacement argument, I can save on adding a third argument, which would look like this:
REGEXP_REPLACE('Having fun with regular expressions', '[^ ]', '')So REPLACE will return all the spaces which we can count with the LENGTH function. If there aren't any, I will get a NULL string, which is checked by the NVL function. If you want you can play around by changing the space character to somethin else.
A variation of this theme could be counting the number of words. Counting spaces and adding 1 to this result could be misleading if there are duplicate spaces. Thanks to regular expressions, I can of course eliminate duplicates.
Using the old method on the string "Having fun with regular expressions" would return anything but the right number. This is, where Backreferences come into play. REGEXP_REPLACE uses them in the replacement argument, a backslash plus a single digit, like this: '\1'. To reference a string in a search pattern, I have to use subexpressions (remember the round brackets?).
SELECT NVL(LENGTH(REGEXP_REPLACE('Having fun with regular expressions', '( )\1*|.', '\1')))
FROM dual
;You may have noticed that I changed from using the "^" as a NOT operator to using the "|" OR operator and the "." any character placeholder. This neat little trick allows to filter all other characters except the one we're looking in the first place. "\1" as backreference is outside of our subexpression since I don't want to count the trailing spaces and is used both in the search pattern and the replacement argument.
Still I'm not satisfied with this: What about leading/trailing blanks, what if there are any special characters, numbers, etc.? Finally, it's time to only count words. For the purpose of this demonstration, I define a word as one or more consecutive letters. If by now you're already thinking in regular expressions, the solution is not far away. One hint: you may want to check on the "i" match parameter which allows for case insensitive search. Another one: You won't need a back reference in the search pattern this time.
Let's compare our solutions than, shall we?
SELECT NVL(LENGTH(REGEXP_REPLACE('Having fun with regular expressions. !',
                                 '([a-z])+|.', '\1', 1, 0, 'i')), 0)
FROM dual;This time I don't use a backreference, the "+" operator (remember? 1 or more) will suffice. And since I want to count the occurences, not the letters, I moved the "+" meta character outside of the subexpression. The "|." trick again proved to be useful.
Case insensitive search does have its merits. It will only search but not transform the any found substring. If I want, for example, extract any occurence of the word fun, I'll just use the "i" match parameter and get this substring, whether it's written as "Fun", "FUN" or "fun". Can be very useful if you're looking for example for names of customers, streets, etc.
Enough about counting, how about finding? What if I want to know the last occurence of a certain character or string, for example the postition of the last space in this string "Where is the last space?"?
Addendum: Thanks to another forum member, I should mention that using the INSTR function can do a reverse search by itself.[i]
WITH t AS (SELECT 'Where is the last space?' col1
             FROM dual)
SELECT INSTR(col1, ' ', -1)
FROM DUAL;Now regular expressions are powerful, but there is no parameter that allows us to reverse the search direction. However, remembering that we have the "$" meta character that means (until the) end of string, all I have to do is use a search pattern that looks for a combination of space and non-space characters including the end of a string. Now compare the REGEXP_INSTR function to the previous solution:
SELECT REGEXP_INSTR(t.col1, ' [^ ]*$')
FROM t;So in this case, it'll remain a matter of taste what you want to use. If the search pattern has to look for the last occurrence of another regular expression, this is the way to solve such a requirement.
One more thing about backreferences. They can be used for a sort of primitive "string swapping". If for example you have to transform column values like swapping first and last name, backreferenc is your friend. Here's an example:
SELECT REGEXP_REPLACE('John Doe', '^(.*) (.*)$', '\2, \1')
FROM dual
;What about middle names, for example 'John J. Doe'? Look for yourself, it still works.
You can even use that for strings with delimiters, for example reversing delimited "fields" like in this string '10~20~30~40~50' into '50~40~30~20~10'. Using REVERSE, I would get '05~04~03~02~01', so there has to be another way. Using backreferences however is limited to 9 subexpressions, which limits the following solution a bit, if you need to process strings with more than 9 fields. If you want, you can think this example through and see if your solution matches mine.
SELECT REGEXP_REPLACE('10~20~30~40~50',
                      '^(.*)~(.*)~(.*)~(.*)~(.*)$',
                      '\5~\4~\3~\2~\1'
FROM dual;After what you've learned so far, that wasn't too hard, was it? Enough for now ...
Continued in Introduction to regular expressions ... last part..
C.
Fixed some typos and a flawed example ...
cd

Thank you very much C. Awaiting other parts.... keep going.
One german typo :-)
I'm replacing all characters except spaces mit anull string.I received a functional spec from my Dutch analyst in which it is written
tnsnames voor EDWH:
PCESCRD1 = (DESCRIPTION=(ADDRESS_LIST=(ADDRESS=(PROTOCOL=TCP)
                                               (HOST=blah.blah.blah.com)
                                               (PORT=5227)))
           (CONNECT_DATA=(SID=pcescrd1)))
db user: BW_I2_VIEWER / BW_I2_VIEWER_SCRD1Had to look for translators.
Cheers
Sarma.

Regular expressions in Oracle 9i

Hello,
Does oracle 9i support regular expressions?
I need to check if a varchar parameter contains only numbers OR letters, otherwise i should return false.
Thanks.

Roger22 wrote:
Hello,
Does oracle 9i support regular expressions?
I need to check if a varchar parameter contains only numbers OR letters, otherwise i should return false.
Thanks.TRANSLATE is helpful to do such a check.
example
WITH testdata AS
   (SELECT 'abcdef' txt FROM DUAL UNION ALL
    SELECT '1234567' txt FROM DUAL union all
    SELECT '0' txt FROM DUAL union all
    SELECT '123a4567x00' txt FROM DUAL union all
    SELECT '123.4567,00' txt FROM DUAL
select txt,
       translate(txt,'a1234567890','a') numbers_removed,
       translate(txt,'0abcdefghijklonopqrstuvwxyzABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ','0') letters_removed
from testdata;
TXT            NUMBERS_REMOVED     LETTERS_REMOVED
abcdef           abcdef
1234567             1234567
0                        0
123a4567x00     ax     123456700
123.4567,00     .,     123.4567,00One idea is to check the result for NULL or to compare the length of similiar expressions.
Problems are usually special chars and how you want to handle that.
Edited by: Sven W. on Aug 11, 2010 11:07 AM
Edited by: Sven W. on Aug 11, 2010 11:07 AM

Regular Expressions with Call Policy on VCSe

Hi Guys,
I am working on firming up the call policy on my VCS Expressway to try to better intercept the SIP spam requests it is getting from internet ip numbers. Right now those spam requets are getting rejected by the loop detection but I want to intercept them before they even do a search on the Expressway. It seems that the call policy rules I create without regular expressions are functioning fine but I don't think I have the syntax correct for the regular expressions.
The goal of this rule is to reject any incoming SIP request that has a destination alias format of 7 to 17 digits followed by an @VCSe_IP. so for example it would reject the following attempts: 0123456@VCSe_IP and 0123456789101112@VCSe_IP with one rule.
The policy I created is this: source pattern: unauthenticated user, Destination pattern: \d{7,17}@xx\.xx\.xx\.xx (where xx is the individual octets of the VCSe IP address), Action: reject
However the above policy does not seem to be rejecting the calls before they do a search. I have checked the above expression with the check pattern tool on the VCSe and it comes up with a sucessful match when I try the destination alias of a request that made it through, hence my confusion. Any help you guys could provide would be appreciated.
Thanks,
Steven

Steven,
Default Zone access rules do not relate to this at all and you can keep those set to 'No'.
How exactly are you placing the test calls when attempting to verify this?
I created the following CPL rule on my X7 VCS (With 10.10.10.10 being the IP address of my VCS):
Source pattern:
Destination pattern: \d{7,17}@10\.10\.10\.10
Action: Reject
I then proceeded with placing a SIP call from an unregistered C20, calling the URI '[email protected]' while running a diagnostics log on my VCS with Network log level set to 'DEBUG', and captured the following in that log:
Incoming INVITE:
2013-02-22T16:03:36+01:00 vcs02 tvcs: UTCTime="2013-02-22 15:03:36,598" Module="network.sip" Level="INFO": Src-ip="10.x.x.x" Src-port="5060"   Detail="Receive Request Method=INVITE, Request-URI=sip:[email protected], Call-ID=9dd19ad75b1063ecf716461b149e9e2a"
2013-02-22T16:03:36+01:00 vcs02 tvcs: UTCTime="2013-02-22 15:03:36,598" Module="network.sip" Level="DEBUG": Src-ip="10.x.x.x" Src-port="5060"
SIPMSG:
|INVITE sip:[email protected] SIP/2.0
Call processing logic, showing CPL matching:
2013-02-22T16:03:36+01:00 vcs02 tvcs: Event="Search Attempted" Service="SIP" Src-alias-type="SIP" Src-alias="10.x.x.x" Dst-alias-type="SIP" Dst-alias="sip:[email protected]" Call-serial-number="0886391c-7d01-11e2-adf5-0050569a08fd" Tag="08863aac-7d01-11e2-bd2e-0050569a08fd" Detail="searchtype:INVITE" Level="1" UTCTime="2013-02-22 15:03:36,601"
2013-02-22T16:03:36+01:00 vcs02 tvcs: Event="Call Attempted" Service="SIP" Src-ip="10.x.x.x" Src-port="5060" Src-alias-type="SIP" Src-alias="sip:10.x.x.x" Dst-alias-type="SIP" Dst-alias="sip:[email protected]" Call-serial-number="0886391c-7d01-11e2-adf5-0050569a08fd" Tag="08863aac-7d01-11e2-bd2e-0050569a08fd" Protocol="UDP" Auth="NO" Level="1" UTCTime="2013-02-22 15:03:36,601"
2013-02-22T16:03:36+01:00 vcs02 tvcs: UTCTime="2013-02-22 15:03:36,602" Module="network.cpl" Level="DEBUG": Remote-ip="10.x.x.x" Remote-port="5060"   Detail="CPL: "
2013-02-22T16:03:36+01:00 vcs02 tvcs: UTCTime="2013-02-22 15:03:36,602" Module="network.cpl" Level="DEBUG": Remote-ip="10.x.x.x" Remote-port="5060"   Detail="CPL: "
2013-02-22T16:03:36+01:00 vcs02 tvcs: UTCTime="2013-02-22 15:03:36,602" Module="network.cpl" Level="DEBUG": Remote-ip="10.x.x.x" Remote-port="5060"   Detail="CPL: matched "
2013-02-22T16:03:36+01:00 vcs02 tvcs: UTCTime="2013-02-22 15:03:36,602" Module="network.cpl" Level="DEBUG": Remote-ip="10.x.x.x" Remote-port="5060"   Detail="CPL: "
VCS responds to INVITE with 403 Forbidden:
2013-02-22T16:03:36+01:00 vcs02 tvcs: UTCTime="2013-02-22 15:03:36,616" Module="network.sip" Level="DEBUG": Dst-ip="10.x.x.x" Dst-port="5060"
SIPMSG:
|SIP/2.0 403 Forbidden
As you can see, on my VCS everything seems to work as expected. I'd recommend you capture a similar diagnostics log on your own VCS to check what is different in your test call compared to the output above.

Checking a number sequence with regular expressions

Hello,
Suppose I have a text in the pattern:
A1=ha,A2=bla,A3=cha,...
I don't know how many sections of "A#=$" (# denotes number, $ denotes text) will be in the text, but I want to verify that the numbers of the A's form the natural ascending number sequence (i.e 1,2,3,...). I prefer to use regular expressions to do this, but if there's another way, I will be glad to hear it too.
Therefore my question is: How can I use regular expressions to check for a sequence of numbers? I know I can search for groups I've caught previously in the expression, but how can I compute the next number in the sequence from the group and search for the result?
Thank you very much!

What I'd do--and I'm not saying this is optimal, just what pops immediately to mind--is have a regex that matches "A(\\d+)=" (assuming the ha, bla, cha can never be "A1" etc.--if they can, you can still do it, but it's more complicated), then you iterate with the Matcher, and each time, you get the Integer.valueOf what you matched. You keep track of the last value, and compare the current to the last. If current is < last (or <= last, depending on your requirements), fail.
Something like this. I don't recall Matcher's methods off the top of my head, so you'll have to fix the details.
Matcher m = Pattern.matcher("A(\\d+)=");
int maxSoFar = Integer.MIN_VALUE;
while (m.matches(input)) {
    int current = Integer.parseInt(m.getMatchedField("$1"));
    if (current <= maxSoFar) {
        // fail
    else {
        maxSoFar = current;
} maxSoFar =

Remove regular expression from a string

Hello,
I have a string like this
@1test;'"{input+
Please help me to remove special characters from the string.

A: remove regular expression from a string

Hi Krishna,
DATA : str TYPE STRING VALUE '@1test;"{}]input+',
            char,
            length TYPE i,
            index TYPE i.
length = STRLEN( str ).
WHILE length > index.
char = str+index(1).
WRITE char.
if char CA '+-*/!`@#$%^&()_=[]{};'.               " Add/Remove here to include numbers
    REPLACE ALL OCCURRENCES OF char in str WITH ''.
    REPLACE ALL OCCURRENCES OF '"' in str WITH ''. " characters "{}[] are not comparable
    REPLACE ALL OCCURRENCES OF '{' in str WITH ''.
    REPLACE ALL OCCURRENCES OF '}' in str WITH ''.
    REPLACE ALL OCCURRENCES OF '[' in str WITH ''.
    REPLACE ALL OCCURRENCES OF ']' in str WITH ''.
    length = STRLEN( str ).
    ENDIF.
add 1 to index.
ENDWHILE.
WRITE str.
Add or remove special char from '+-*/!`@#$%^&()_=[]{};' in if part as per your requirement.
Hope it meets your requirement.
Do not forget to mark helpful/correct if ma answer is useful .
Thanks,
Karthik

Help on regular expression

hi all
i need to validate telephone number , and i tried to use the following expression :
"[\\d][\\d][\\d]-[\\d][\\d][\\d][\\d]" or
"[0-9][0-9][0-9]-[0-9][0-9][0-9][0-9]" they did not seem to work. can anyone provide some help on this? thanks in advance.

Hi,
Can anyone provide me the regular expression for the following?
1. String Should contain 7 letters (can include '*') followed by 5 alphanumeric characters i.e.5 numbers/letters
For this one, I've written reg expn = ([a-zA-Z]*[*]*[a-zA-Z]*){7}\\w{5}
But, somehow this is not working...can anyone pleaseeeee explain wots wrong with this one or give me alternate solution???????
2. String should contain 7 numbers or 7 digits consisting of 1 letter & 6 numbers in varying order, no spaces.
For this one, reg expn = (\\d{7})|((\\d*[a-zA-Z]\\d*){7})
But this is also not working...... Please help!!!!!
3. String should contain 9 numbers or 8 alphanumeric characters i.e. 8 numbers/letters or 13 numbers
This one looks really simple, but still (\\d{9})|(\\w{8})|(\\d{13}) is not working.....Please helpppp
I'll appreciate if any Regular Expresion expert can resolve my problem!!! Also, I'm using gnu-regexp-1.0.8.jar as we r not using JDK 1.4!!!! We've to use only this library, no other choice...so, please suggest!!!!!!

Help With Regular Expression In Apex Validation

Apex 3.2
There is a validation type of regular expression in apex, but I have never used regular expression before,
so a little help is appreciated.
I need to validate a field. It is only allowed to contain alpha characers, numbers, spaces and the - (dash) character.
I have tried several times to get this working
eg
[[:alpha:]]*[[:digit:]]*[[:space:]]*[-]*
^[[:alpha:][:digit:][:space:]-]+?
and others, but just can't to get the syntax correct.
Can someone help me with this please
Gus

Example:
SQL> ed
Wrote file afiedt.buf
1 with t as (select 'This is some example text' as txt from dual union all
2             select 'And this is the 2nd one with numbers' from dual union all
3             select 'And this allows double-barrelled words with hyphens' from dual union all
4             select 'But this one shouldn''t be allowed!' from dual
5            )
6 --
7 select *
8 from t
9* where regexp_like(txt, '^[[:alnum:] -]*$')
SQL> /
TXT
This is some example text
And this is the 2nd one with numbers
And this allows double-barrelled words with hyphens

Regular expression to compare numbers

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for