I’ve been reading Mastering Regular Expressions by Jeffrey E.F. Friedl, and since nobody in my life (aside from my wife) cares, I thought I’d share something I’m pretty proud of. My first set of regular expressions, that I wrote myself to manipulate the text I’m working with.

What’s I’m so happy about is that I wrote these expressions. I understand exactly what they do and the purpose of each character in each expression.

I’ve used regex in the past. Stuff cobbled together from stack overflow, but I never really understood how they worked or what the expressions meant, just that they did what I needed them to do at the time.

I’m only about 10% of the way through the book, but already I understand so much more than I ever did about regex (I also recognize I have a lot to learn).

I wrote the expressions to be used with egrep and sed to generate and clean up a list of filenames pulled out of tarballs. (movies I’ve ripped from my DVD collection and tarballed to archive them).

The first expression I wrote was this one used with tar and egrep to list the files in the tarball and get just the name of the video file:

tar -tzvf file.tar.gz | egrep -o '\/[^/]*\.m(kv|p4)' > movielist

Which gives me a list of movies of which this is an example:

/The.Hunger.Games.(2012).[tmdbid-70160].mp4

Then I used sed with the expression groups to remove:

  • the leading forward slash
  • Everything from .[ to the end
  • All of the periods in between words

And the last expression checks for one or more spaces and replaces them with a single space.

This is the full sed command:

sed -Eie 's/^\///; s/\.\[[a-z]+-[0-9]+\]\.m(p4|kv)//; s/[^a-zA-Z0-9\(\)&-]/ /g; s/ +/ /g' movielist

Which leaves me with a pretty list of movies that looks like this:

The Hunger Games (2012)

I’m sure this could be done more elegantly, and I’m happy for any feedback on how to do that! For now, I’m just excited that I’m beginning to understand regex and how to use it!

Edit: fixed title so it didn’t say “regex expressions”

  • Tetsuo@jlai.lu
    37·
    1 year ago

    Good job !

    I highly recommend trying out the various online regex editor.

    These WISIWIG kind of editors are great because you immediately see what the regex is catching and for what reason.

    I took the first one in my search results but try different ones.

    https://regex101.com/

    Also I used GPT to get some regex for some specific strings and it can be helpful to get a quickstart at building a specific regex.

    In that case I was building a regex for a specific log from postfix.

    PS: just make sure to select the correct flavor of regex you are using in these online tools.

    Edit: Also one of my favorite YT channels has pretty cool videos on RegEx : https://youtu.be/6gddK-cOxYc?si=0bnNkSDzifjdxwjU

    • virku@lemmy.world
      10·
      1 year ago

      Wait. Are there flavors of regex? Every time I have to use regex it hurts my brain and I never need to do it enough to actually sit down and learn it properly like OP is doing. Just knowing there are different ways of doing the same things in an already mind baffeling language blows me away even more.

      • remotelove@lemmy.ca
        20·
        1 year ago

        Yeah. The only one you really need to care about (especially under Linux) is PCRE, the good 'ol Perl Compatible Regular Expressions. For the most part, every other flavor is a derivative of that. Microsoft had a weird version for a while, but that may be completely dead now, thankfully.

        Learning the syntax of regex is fairly easy. Hell, I still have to use this cheat sheet more often now that my perl skills are no longer needed or even relevant.

        Regex isn’t that hard. The challenge is identifying and understanding patterns in the data that you are filtering. Here is a brain hack: As an example, if to have pages and pages of logs that you need to filter, open up one of the log files, stare at the screen and hold the page down key for several dozen pages. Patterns can be easily seen in the blur of text that is quickly scrolling across the screen. (Our brains love to find patterns in noise, btw.) The patterns that you see will give you focus points for developing regular expressions to match. ie: You start breaking strings into chunks and seeing the ebb and flow of data streaming across a screen helps. Anomalies in the data “stream” are are easy to spot as well.

        From a security and efficiency standpoint, you should also understand where the most processing takes place so you don’t kill whatever platform you are working on.

        Sorry for the rambling, but I am getting older and feel the need to pass on a ton of tips and tricks whenever I can for these “archaic” languages.

        • harsh3466@lemmy.worldOPEnglish
          6·
          1 year ago

          That screen scrolling tip is gold. I’ve often used that trick to spot anomalies in data. Hadn’t considered using it to spot the patterns for regex.

        • bizdelnick@lemmy.ml
          2·
          1 year ago

          The only one you really need to care about (especially under Linux) is PCRE,

          Well, no. sed, grep, awk, vi etc. use POSIX regexes. GNU implementations also provide perl compatible mode via an unportable option. In modern programming languages like go and rust standard regex engines are compatible to RE2 - relatively new dialect developed in Google that is not described in the Friedl’s book (you may think of it as an extension of extended POSIX dialect). Even raku has its own dialect incompatible to perl as well as other ones.

          Nowadays it is common to move away from perl-like engines, however they are still widely used in PCRE based software and software written in python, JS etc.

          • remotelove@lemmy.ca
            1·
            1 year ago

            POSIX? Never heard of her.

            While you are likely 100% correct, the legacy perl developer side of me is making nasty comments to you with illegible syntax.

            • bizdelnick@lemmy.ml
              2·
              1 year ago

              Perl has introduced powerful backtracking regexes that were widely adopted. However they can be damn slow in some cases, that’s why RE2 refused backtracking while using some perl-like elements. Both basic and extended POSIX regexes are also non-backtracking because they are older than perl.

        • virku@lemmy.world
          1·
          1 year ago

          Thanks for the comprehensive reply! I have only used it for quite simple things like getting the id’s out of log lines where this and this key word exist. Great tip about pattern searching!

          Merry Christmas

      • ricecake@sh.itjust.works
        5·
        1 year ago

        Yes. Most things use pcre, or Perl Compatible Regular Expressions, but there are other flavors. Usually they lack features or have slightly different syntax.

    • fuckwit_mcbumcrumble@lemmy.worldEnglish
      6·
      1 year ago

      Regex101 is amazing. It tends to balk at backtracing which we rely on a lot for work, but it’s such a good visual.

      Chat GPT can also save a lot of time writing regex, but it tends to write very unreadable regex because it thinks it’s being clever when it really isnt.

      Regex is an art form, and writing readable regex is another step above that.

    • malijaffri@feddit.ch
      2·
      1 year ago

      Piggybacking onto this to mention my go-to online RegEx editor: RegExr. It lets you test the regex as you type, explains the particular symbols used, as well as has a sidebar where you can see different pattern types categorically. I’ve been using it for almost 2 years now, and haven’t had any reason to use much else (after I discovered this).

    • harsh3466@lemmy.worldOPEnglish
      2·
      1 year ago

      Thank you very much. I will definitely check out the regex builders. That’ll be super useful

      Edit: fix stupid autocorrect turning regex into Reyes.

  • bizdelnick@lemmy.ml
    151·
    1 year ago

    It is a great book, although a bit outdated. In particular, nowadays egrep is not recommended to use. grep -E is a more portable synonim.

    Some notes on you script:

    1. You don’t need to escape slashes in grep regex. In the sed s/// command better use another character like s### so you also can leave slashes unescaped.

    2. You usually don’t need to pipe grep and sed, sed -n with regex address and explicit printing command gives the same result as grep.

    3. You could omit leading slash in your egrep regex, so you won’t need to remove it later.

    So I would do the same with

    tar -tzvf file.tar.gz | sed -En '/\.(mp4|mkv)$/{s#^.*/##; s#\.\[.*##; s#[^a-zA-Z0-9()&-]# #g; s/ +/ /g; p}'
    • DefederateLemmyMl@feddit.nlEnglish
      84·
      1 year ago

      nowadays egrep is not recommended to use. grep -E is a more portable synonim

      Not directed at you personally, but this is the kind of pointless pedantry from upstream developers that grinds my gears.

      Like, I’ve used egrep for 25 years. I don’t know of a still relevant Unix variant in existence that doesn’t have the egrep command. But suddenly now, when any other Unix variant but Linux is all but extinct, and all your shell scripts are probably full of bashisms and Linuxisms anyway, now there is somehow a portability problem, and they deem it necessary to print out a warning whenever I dare to run egrep instead of grep -E? C’mon now … If anything, they have just made it less portable by spitting out spurious warnings where there weren’t any before.

      • bizdelnick@lemmy.ml
        43·
        1 year ago

        GNU grep, the most widespread implementation, does not include egrep, fgrep and rgrep for years. Distributions (not all, but many) provide shell scripts that simply run grep with corresponding option for backward compatibility. You can learn this from official documentation.

        Also, my scripts are not full of bashisms, gnuisms, linuxisms and other -isms, I try to keep them portable unless it is really necessary to use some unportable command or syntax.

        • DefederateLemmyMl@feddit.nlEnglish
          33·
          1 year ago

          GNU grep, the most widespread implementation, does not include egrep, fgrep and rgrep for years. Distributions (not all, but many) provide shell scripts that simply run grep with corresponding option for backward compatibility. You can learn this from official documentation.

          It seems you need to read the official documentation yourself. While it’s new information to me that egrep is no longer a symlink, as it used to be a couple of years ago, but a shell script wrapper to grep -E instead, the egrep command is to this day still provided by upstream GNU grep and is installed by default if you run ./configure; make; make install from source. So it is not a backward compatibility hack provided by the distribution.

          You can check for yourself. Download the source from https://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/grep/grep-3.11.tar.gz, unpack and look for src/egrep.sh or line 1756 of src/Makefile. Apparently the change from symlink to shell script was done in 2014, and the deprecation warning was added only last year.

          In any case, my larger point is that the depreciation of egrep was a pointless and arbitrary decision that does not benefit users, especially not veterans like myself who have become accustomed to its presence. I don’t mind change, but let’s be honest, most people are not in the habit of checking the minutiae of every little command line utility they use, so a change like this violates the principle of least surprise. It’s one thing if things are changed with a good reason and the users do not only suffer the inconvenience of the change but get to reap the benefits of it as well, but so far I haven’t found any justification for it yet, nor can I think of any.

          So if there is a portability problem with using egrep now, it’s a self-inflicted portability problem that they caused by deprecating egrep in the first place.

          Also, my scripts are not full of bashisms, gnuisms, linuxisms and other -isms, I try to keep them portable unless it is really necessary to use some unportable command or syntax.

          Good for you. Do you want a cookie or something?

            • DefederateLemmyMl@feddit.nlEnglish
              1·
              1 year ago

              Well he wrote it like he wanted to be applauded for it or something.

              I also find the irony of your comment extremely funny … although that’s probably lost on you.

              Later, dude.

          • bizdelnick@lemmy.ml
            23·
            1 year ago

            It seems you need to read the official documentation yourself.

            I did. Debian man page, GNU grep manual.

            I’m sorry for your loss, however the egrep deprecation is a fact. Of course you can continue using it as a veteran, but it is not correct to recommend this to beginners.

            • DefederateLemmyMl@feddit.nlEnglish
              2·
              1 year ago

              You are strawmanning, and your links are not countering any point I made. I never disputed the depreciation as fact, and I never recommended that beginners should use egrep over grep -E

              I disputed your claims that the egrep command has just been a distro hack all these years, when in fact GNU to this day still distributes egrep through its source tarballs and only very recently started to warn about it through the wrapper script. And again, the only “portability problem” here is the fact that they deprecated it in the first place, i.e. a self-inflicted one.

              Then as a Linux and Unix veteran I gave my subjective opinion by lamenting and criticizing the fact that this depreciation happened, and how changes like this always feel like unnecessary pedantry to me. Yes it’s an expression of frustration, but I am allowed to feel frustrated about it. I don’t need people like you invalidating how I feel about breaking changes in software that I use daily.

  • Trent@lemmy.mlEnglish
    12·
    1 year ago

    Just adding my congrats. Good job, OP. Regex is super useful stuff.

  • FaceDeer@kbin.social
    142·
    1 year ago

    Just to chip in because I haven’t seen it mentioned yet, but I fing LLMs like ChatGPT or Microsoft Copilot are really good at making regexes and also at explaining regexes. So if you’re learning them or just want to get the darned thing to work so you can go to bed those are a good resource.

  • ShittyBeatlesFCPres@lemmy.worldEnglish
    11·
    1 year ago

    Nice! Learning regular expressions is one of those things where it’s absurd but once you do it, you can solve problems that bedevil whole industries.

    • harsh3466@lemmy.worldOPEnglish
      6·
      1 year ago

      Thanks!

      And it still kinda breaks my brain when I look at an expression. When I just look at it it looks like utter gibberish, but when I say to myself, “okay, what’s this doing?”

      And go through it character by character, it turns into something I can comprehend.

  • davel [he/him]@lemmy.mlEnglish
    10·
    1 year ago

    “regex” means “regular expression”, so “regex expression” means “regular expression expression”.

    • harsh3466@lemmy.worldOPEnglish
      4·
      1 year ago

      Dang! I read through my post three times to make sure I didn’t do that and completely missed that I did it right in the title. (Now fixed).

    • bizdelnick@lemmy.ml
      3·
      1 year ago

      Well, technically it is possible with regex dialect that has lookarounds, but it is overcomplicated. There’s really no reason to do it.

  • Thorry84@feddit.nl
    5·
    1 year ago

    I can also recommend the book the TS mentioned, it is very good and after reading it you will understand regular expressions. It’s fine to use a cheat sheet if you want, cause if you don’t do it regularly the knowledge can sag, but the understanding is what matters. Also depending on the context, different implementations can have slightly different syntax or modifiers to be aware of.

    I lent out the book to my brother once and he somehow lost it, so I never got it back. Don’t lend out book guys.

    And remember not everything can be solved using a regular expression: https://xkcd.com/1171/

  • juli@programming.dev
    4·
    1 year ago

    That’s cool! Kudos!

    My biggest project was to remove leading and trailing whitespaces but I think I failed twice 😅