5 ms·

For those not aware of all the alternative online regex testers out there... I prefer regex101.com because of the better color coding. I previously made a snip

by jasode 10y ago

For those not aware of all the alternative online regex testers out there... I prefer regex101.com because of the better color coding. I previously made a snippet demonstrating that benefit: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9581225 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9581225

showerst 10y ago
Seconding regex101.com -- it's really a wonderful tool.
simooooo 10y ago
I use both for different reasons. (From memory I think one does replacements better) Both are fantastic tools. My first port of call when trapped with a tricky regex.
shriek 10y ago
Likewise, there's debuggex.com too to visualize your regex.
jmiserez 10y ago
Also regex101.com (and debuggex.com) have they're own PCRE implementation, which is really useful if you need something other than JS regexes.
sphix 10y ago
Sometimes I wonder if these online tools mine data on text blobs and regex we pass in. I can only imagine how potential IP could be leaked if the data was correlated to a company that the user is using the tool from. Has anyone done analysis to see whether to tools send data back to the servers? In theory the entire app should be client side only.
- macintux 10y ago
  I've never felt comfortable with password strength tools online for similar reasons. Sure, most (maybe all) are local Javascript, but still.
  - ehsankia 10y ago
    Can you not monitor networking and make sure nothing is being sent back?
    - macintux 10y ago
      Sure, but it's a lot easier to just not use 'em.
      - ehsankia 10y ago
        Not really, these provide much needed help. It's like saying, I'm gonna stick to Notepad and not use a proper IDE because I'm not sure if they send the code I write back to themselves.
- mvindahl 10y ago
  They probably don't but still kind of hard to be sure. In principle they could introduce it at any given time without anyone noticing for a while. Of course, once someone does notice, the shit will hit the fan. Anyway, I share your nagging doubt and I'd never paste any text containing sensitive information into any text pane on a web page, not regexr, not JSON formatters, not anywhere.
theincredulousk 10y ago
second regex101. Been my goto for several years.
crispyambulance 10y ago
Second that, because it supports different flavors of regex (pcre, javascript, python). I use regexhero.net for .NET regex support.
- jasode 10y ago
  >I use regexhero.net for .NET regex support. So far, I've been using regex101 even for building C# .NET regex because I haven't needed Microsoft-specific behavior. That regexhero.net is an interesting link. I would have preferred that the website built a .NET compatible engine by extracting the actual source code[1] available from Microsoft. That way, it wouldn't require using the Silverlight plugin. However, I understand why Silverlight would be the easiest way. [1] https://referencesource.microsoft.com/#System/regex/system/text/regularexpressions/Regex.cs,bbe3b2eb80ae5526 https://referencesource.microsoft.com/#System/regex/system/t... and may also use transpiler: https://www.google.com/search?q=C%23+to+javascript+transpiler https://www.google.com/search?q=C%23+to+javascript+transpile...
  - chrismeller 10y ago
    I think the easier solution would be simply to write your tester in one of the .NET languages... That seems to be the approach http://regexstorm.net/tester http://regexstorm.net/tester took, at least. It's low frills (only highlights matches), but it's good for making sure that the problem really and truly isn't some weird regex quirk.

by jasode 10y ago

showerst 10y ago

Seconding regex101.com -- it's really a wonderful tool.

simooooo 10y ago

I use both for different reasons. (From memory I think one does replacements better) Both are fantastic tools. My first port of call when trapped with a tricky regex.

shriek 10y ago

Likewise, there's debuggex.com too to visualize your regex.

jmiserez 10y ago

Also regex101.com (and debuggex.com) have they're own PCRE implementation, which is really useful if you need something other than JS regexes.

sphix 10y ago

Sometimes I wonder if these online tools mine data on text blobs and regex we pass in. I can only imagine how potential IP could be leaked if the data was correlated to a company that the user is using the tool from. Has anyone done analysis to see whether to tools send data back to the servers? In theory the entire app should be client side only.

macintux 10y ago
I've never felt comfortable with password strength tools online for similar reasons. Sure, most (maybe all) are local Javascript, but still.
- ehsankia 10y ago
  Can you not monitor networking and make sure nothing is being sent back?
  - macintux 10y ago
    Sure, but it's a lot easier to just not use 'em.
    - ehsankia 10y ago
      Not really, these provide much needed help. It's like saying, I'm gonna stick to Notepad and not use a proper IDE because I'm not sure if they send the code I write back to themselves.
mvindahl 10y ago
They probably don't but still kind of hard to be sure. In principle they could introduce it at any given time without anyone noticing for a while. Of course, once someone does notice, the shit will hit the fan. Anyway, I share your nagging doubt and I'd never paste any text containing sensitive information into any text pane on a web page, not regexr, not JSON formatters, not anywhere.

theincredulousk 10y ago

second regex101. Been my goto for several years.

crispyambulance 10y ago

Second that, because it supports different flavors of regex (pcre, javascript, python). I use regexhero.net for .NET regex support.

jasode 10y ago
>I use regexhero.net for .NET regex support. So far, I've been using regex101 even for building C# .NET regex because I haven't needed Microsoft-specific behavior. That regexhero.net is an interesting link. I would have preferred that the website built a .NET compatible engine by extracting the actual source code[1] available from Microsoft. That way, it wouldn't require using the Silverlight plugin. However, I understand why Silverlight would be the easiest way. [1] https://referencesource.microsoft.com/#System/regex/system/text/regularexpressions/Regex.cs,bbe3b2eb80ae5526 https://referencesource.microsoft.com/#System/regex/system/t... and may also use transpiler: https://www.google.com/search?q=C%23+to+javascript+transpiler https://www.google.com/search?q=C%23+to+javascript+transpile...
- chrismeller 10y ago
  I think the easier solution would be simply to write your tester in one of the .NET languages... That seems to be the approach http://regexstorm.net/tester http://regexstorm.net/tester took, at least. It's low frills (only highlights matches), but it's good for making sure that the problem really and truly isn't some weird regex quirk.