Develop Reference

Reading in a text file more 'intelligently'

I have a text file which contains a list of alphabetically organized variables with their variable numbers next to them formatted something like follows:
aabcdef 208
abcdefghijk 1191
bcdefga 7
cdefgab 12
defgab 100
efgabcd 999
fgabc 86
gabcdef 9
h 11
ijk 80
...
...
I would like to read each text as a string and keep it's designated id# something like read "aabcdef" and store it into an array at spot 208.
The 2 issues I'm running into are:
I've never read from file in C#, is there a way to read, say from
start of line to whitespace as a string? and then the next string as
an int until the end of line?
given the nature and size of these files I do not know the highest ID value of each file (not all numbers are used so some
files could house a number like 3000, but only actually list 200
variables) So how could I make a flexible way to store these
variables when I don't know how big the array/list/stack/etc.. would
need to be.

Basically you need a Dictionary instead of an array or list. You can read all lines with File.ReadLines method then split each of them based on space and \t (tab), like this:
var values = File.ReadLines("path")
.Select(line => line.Split(new [] { ' ', '\t' }, StringSplitOptions.RemoveEmptyEntries))
.ToDictionary(parts => int.Parse(parts[1]), parts => parts[0]);
Then values[208] will give you aabcdef. It looks like an array doesn't it :)
Also make sure you have no duplicate numbers because Dictionary keys should be unique otherwise you will get an exception.

I've been thinking about how I would improve other answers and I've found this alternative solution based on Regex which makes the search into the whole string (either coming from a file or not) safer.
Check that you can alter the whole regular expression to include other separators. Sample expression will detect spaces and tabs.
At the end of the day, I found that MatchCollection returns a safer result, since you always know that 3rd group is an integer and 2nd group is a text because regular expression does a lot of checking for you!
StringBuilder builder = new StringBuilder();
builder.AppendLine("djdodjodo\t\t3893983");
builder.AppendLine("dddfddffd\t\t233");
builder.AppendLine("djdodjodo\t\t39838");
builder.AppendLine("djdodjodo\t\t12");
builder.AppendLine("djdodjodo\t\t444");
builder.AppendLine("djdodjodo\t\t5683");
builder.Append("djdodjodo\t\t33");
// Replace this line with calling File.ReadAllText to read a file!
string text = builder.ToString();
MatchCollection matches = Regex.Matches(text, #"([^\s^\t]+)(?:[\s\t])+([0-9]+)", RegexOptions.IgnoreCase | RegexOptions.Multiline);
// Here's the magic: we convert an IEnumerable<Match> into a dictionary!
// Check that using regexps, int.Parse should never fail because
// it matched numbers only!
IDictionary<int, string> lines = matches.Cast<Match>()
.ToDictionary(match => int.Parse(match.Groups[2].Value), match => match.Groups[1].Value);
// Now you can access your lines as follows:
string value = lines[33]; // <-- By value
Update:
As we discussed in chat, this solution wasn't working in some actual use case you showed me, but it's not the approach what's not working but your particular case, because keys are "[something].[something]" (for example: address.Name).
I've changed given regular expression to ([\w\.]+)[\s\t]+([0-9]+) so it covers the case of key having a dot.
It's about improving the matching regular expression to fit your requirements! ;)
Update 2:
Since you told me that you need keys having any character, I've changed the regular expression to ([^\s^\t]+)(?:[\s\t])+([0-9]+).
Now it means that key is anything excepting spaces and tabs.
Update 3:
Also I see you're stuck in .NET 3.0 and ToDictionary was introduced in .NET 3.5. If you want to get the same approach in .NET 3.0, replace ToDictionary(...) with:
Dictionary<int, string> lines = new Dictionary<int, string>();
foreach(Match match in matches)
{
lines.Add(int.Parse(match.Groups[2].Value), match.Groups[1].Value);
}

C# validate phone number with Regex [duplicate]

I'm trying to put together a comprehensive regex to validate phone numbers. Ideally it would handle international formats, but it must handle US formats, including the following:
1-234-567-8901
1-234-567-8901 x1234
1-234-567-8901 ext1234
1 (234) 567-8901
1.234.567.8901
1/234/567/8901
12345678901
I'll answer with my current attempt, but I'm hoping somebody has something better and/or more elegant.

Better option... just strip all non-digit characters on input (except 'x' and leading '+' signs), taking care because of the British tendency to write numbers in the non-standard form +44 (0) ... when asked to use the international prefix (in that specific case, you should discard the (0) entirely).
Then, you end up with values like:
12345678901
12345678901x1234
345678901x1234
12344678901
12345678901
12345678901
12345678901
+4112345678
+441234567890
Then when you display, reformat to your hearts content. e.g.
1 (234) 567-8901
1 (234) 567-8901 x1234

.*
If the users want to give you their phone numbers, then trust them to get it right. If they do not want to give it to you then forcing them to enter a valid number will either send them to a competitor's site or make them enter a random string that fits your regex. I might even be tempted to look up the number of a premium rate horoscope hotline and enter that instead.
I would also consider any of the following as valid entries on a web site:
"123 456 7890 until 6pm, then 098 765 4321"
"123 456 7890 or try my mobile on 098 765 4321"
"ex-directory - mind your own business"

It turns out that there's something of a spec for this, at least for North America, called the NANP.
You need to specify exactly what you want. What are legal delimiters? Spaces, dashes, and periods? No delimiter allowed? Can one mix delimiters (e.g., +0.111-222.3333)? How are extensions (e.g., 111-222-3333 x 44444) going to be handled? What about special numbers, like 911? Is the area code going to be optional or required?
Here's a regex for a 7 or 10 digit number, with extensions allowed, delimiters are spaces, dashes, or periods:
^(?:(?:\+?1\s*(?:[.-]\s*)?)?(?:\(\s*([2-9]1[02-9]|[2-9][02-8]1|[2-9][02-8][02-9])\s*\)|([2-9]1[02-9]|[2-9][02-8]1|[2-9][02-8][02-9]))\s*(?:[.-]\s*)?)?([2-9]1[02-9]|[2-9][02-9]1|[2-9][02-9]{2})\s*(?:[.-]\s*)?([0-9]{4})(?:\s*(?:#|x\.?|ext\.?|extension)\s*(\d+))?$

I would also suggest looking at the "libphonenumber" Google Library. I know it is not regex but it does exactly what you want.
For example, it will recognize that:
15555555555
is a possible number but not a valid number. It also supports countries outside the US.
Highlights of functionality:
Parsing/formatting/validating phone numbers for all countries/regions of the world.
getNumberType - gets the type of the number based on the number itself; able to distinguish Fixed-line, Mobile, Toll-free, Premium Rate, Shared Cost, VoIP and Personal Numbers (whenever feasible).
isNumberMatch - gets a confidence level on whether two numbers could be the same.
getExampleNumber/getExampleNumberByType - provides valid example numbers for all countries/regions, with the option of specifying which type of example phone number is needed.
isPossibleNumber - quickly guessing whether a number is a possible phonenumber by using only the length information, much faster than a full validation.
isValidNumber - full validation of a phone number for a region using length and prefix information.
AsYouTypeFormatter - formats phone numbers on-the-fly when users enter each digit.
findNumbers - finds numbers in text input.
PhoneNumberOfflineGeocoder - provides geographical information related to a phone number.
Examples
The biggest problem with phone number validation is it is very culturally dependant.
America
(408) 974–2042 is a valid US number
(999) 974–2042 is not a valid US number
Australia
0404 999 999 is a valid Australian number
(02) 9999 9999 is also a valid Australian number
(09) 9999 9999 is not a valid Australian number
A regular expression is fine for checking the format of a phone number, but it's not really going to be able to check the validity of a phone number.
I would suggest skipping a simple regular expression to test your phone number against, and using a library such as Google's libphonenumber (link to GitHub project).
Introducing libphonenumber!
Using one of your more complex examples, 1-234-567-8901 x1234, you get the following data out of libphonenumber (link to online demo):
Validation Results
Result from isPossibleNumber() true
Result from isValidNumber() true
Formatting Results:
E164 format +12345678901
Original format (234) 567-8901 ext. 123
National format (234) 567-8901 ext. 123
International format +1 234-567-8901 ext. 123
Out-of-country format from US 1 (234) 567-8901 ext. 123
Out-of-country format from CH 00 1 234-567-8901 ext. 123
So not only do you learn if the phone number is valid (which it is), but you also get consistent phone number formatting in your locale.
As a bonus, libphonenumber has a number of datasets to check the validity of phone numbers, as well, so checking a number such as +61299999999 (the international version of (02) 9999 9999) returns as a valid number with formatting:
Validation Results
Result from isPossibleNumber() true
Result from isValidNumber() true
Formatting Results
E164 format +61299999999
Original format 61 2 9999 9999
National format (02) 9999 9999
International format +61 2 9999 9999
Out-of-country format from US 011 61 2 9999 9999
Out-of-country format from CH 00 61 2 9999 9999
libphonenumber also gives you many additional benefits, such as grabbing the location that the phone number is detected as being, and also getting the time zone information from the phone number:
PhoneNumberOfflineGeocoder Results
Location Australia
PhoneNumberToTimeZonesMapper Results
Time zone(s) [Australia/Sydney]
But the invalid Australian phone number ((09) 9999 9999) returns that it is not a valid phone number.
Validation Results
Result from isPossibleNumber() true
Result from isValidNumber() false
Google's version has code for Java and Javascript, but people have also implemented libraries for other languages that use the Google i18n phone number dataset:
PHP: https://github.com/giggsey/libphonenumber-for-php
Python: https://github.com/daviddrysdale/python-phonenumbers
Ruby: https://github.com/sstephenson/global_phone
C#: https://github.com/twcclegg/libphonenumber-csharp
Objective-C: https://github.com/iziz/libPhoneNumber-iOS
JavaScript: https://github.com/ruimarinho/google-libphonenumber
Elixir: https://github.com/socialpaymentsbv/ex_phone_number
Unless you are certain that you are always going to be accepting numbers from one locale, and they are always going to be in one format, I would heavily suggest not writing your own code for this, and using libphonenumber for validating and displaying phone numbers.

/^(?:(?:\(?(?:00|\+)([1-4]\d\d|[1-9]\d+)\)?)[\-\.\ \\\/]?)?((?:\(?\d{1,}\)?[\-\.\ \\\/]?)+)(?:[\-\.\ \\\/]?(?:#|ext\.?|extension|x)[\-\.\ \\\/]?(\d+))?$/i
This matches:
- (+351) 282 43 50 50
- 90191919908
- 555-8909
- 001 6867684
- 001 6867684x1
- 1 (234) 567-8901
- 1-234-567-8901 x1234
- 1-234-567-8901 ext1234
- 1-234 567.89/01 ext.1234
- 1(234)5678901x1234
- (123)8575973
- (0055)(123)8575973
On $n, it saves:
Country indicator
Phone number
Extension
You can test it on https://regex101.com/r/kFzb1s/1

Although the answer to strip all whitespace is neat, it doesn't really solve the problem that's posed, which is to find a regex. Take, for instance, my test script that downloads a web page and extracts all phone numbers using the regex. Since you'd need a regex anyway, you might as well have the regex do all the work. I came up with this:
1?\W*([2-9][0-8][0-9])\W*([2-9][0-9]{2})\W*([0-9]{4})(\se?x?t?(\d*))?
Here's a perl script to test it. When you match, $1 contains the area code, $2 and $3 contain the phone number, and $5 contains the extension. My test script downloads a file from the internet and prints all the phone numbers in it.
#!/usr/bin/perl
my $us_phone_regex =
'1?\W*([2-9][0-8][0-9])\W*([2-9][0-9]{2})\W*([0-9]{4})(\se?x?t?(\d*))?';
my #tests =
(
"1-234-567-8901",
"1-234-567-8901 x1234",
"1-234-567-8901 ext1234",
"1 (234) 567-8901",
"1.234.567.8901",
"1/234/567/8901",
"12345678901",
"not a phone number"
);
foreach my $num (#tests)
{
if( $num =~ m/$us_phone_regex/ )
{
print "match [$1-$2-$3]\n" if not defined $4;
print "match [$1-$2-$3 $5]\n" if defined $4;
}
else
{
print "no match [$num]\n";
}
}
#
# Extract all phone numbers from an arbitrary file.
#
my $external_filename =
'http://web.textfiles.com/ezines/PHREAKSANDGEEKS/PnG-spring05.txt';
my #external_file = `curl $external_filename`;
foreach my $line (#external_file)
{
if( $line =~ m/$us_phone_regex/ )
{
print "match $1 $2 $3\n";
}
}
Edit:
You can change \W* to \s*\W?\s* in the regex to tighten it up a bit. I wasn't thinking of the regex in terms of, say, validating user input on a form when I wrote it, but this change makes it possible to use the regex for that purpose.
'1?\s*\W?\s*([2-9][0-8][0-9])\s*\W?\s*([2-9][0-9]{2})\s*\W?\s*([0-9]{4})(\se?x?t?(\d*))?';

I answered this question on another SO question before deciding to also include my answer as an answer on this thread, because no one was addressing how to require/not require items, just handing out regexs:
Regex working wrong, matching unexpected things
From my post on that site, I've created a quick guide to assist anyone with making their own regex for their own desired phone number format, which I will caveat (like I did on the other site) that if you are too restrictive, you may not get the desired results, and there is no "one size fits all" solution to accepting all possible phone numbers in the world - only what you decide to accept as your format of choice. Use at your own risk.
Quick cheat sheet
Start the expression: /^
If you want to require a space, use: [\s] or \s
If you want to require parenthesis, use: [(] and [)] . Using \( and \) is ugly and can make things confusing.
If you want anything to be optional, put a ? after it
If you want a hyphen, just type - or [-] . If you do not put it first or last in a series of other characters, though, you may need to escape it: \-
If you want to accept different choices in a slot, put brackets around the options: [-.\s] will require a hyphen, period, or space. A question mark after the last bracket will make all of those optional for that slot.
\d{3} : Requires a 3-digit number: 000-999. Shorthand for
[0-9][0-9][0-9].
[2-9] : Requires a digit 2-9 for that slot.
(\+|1\s)? : Accept a "plus" or a 1 and a space (pipe character, |, is "or"), and make it optional. The "plus" sign must be escaped.
If you want specific numbers to match a slot, enter them: [246] will require a 2, 4, or 6. (?:77|78) or [77|78] will require 77 or 78.
$/ : End the expression

I wrote simpliest (although i didn't need dot in it).
^([0-9\(\)\/\+ \-]*)$
As mentioned below, it checks only for characters, not its structure/order

Note that stripping () characters does not work for a style of writing UK numbers that is common: +44 (0) 1234 567890 which means dial either the international number:
+441234567890
or in the UK dial 01234567890

If you just want to verify you don't have random garbage in the field (i.e., from form spammers) this regex should do nicely:
^[0-9+\(\)#\.\s\/ext-]+$
Note that it doesn't have any special rules for how many digits, or what numbers are valid in those digits, it just verifies that only digits, parenthesis, dashes, plus, space, pound, asterisk, period, comma, or the letters e, x, t are present.
It should be compatible with international numbers and localization formats. Do you foresee any need to allow square, curly, or angled brackets for some regions? (currently they aren't included).
If you want to maintain per digit rules (such as in US Area Codes and Prefixes (exchange codes) must fall in the range of 200-999) well, good luck to you. Maintaining a complex rule-set which could be outdated at any point in the future by any country in the world does not sound fun.
And while stripping all/most non-numeric characters may work well on the server side (especially if you are planning on passing these values to a dialer), you may not want to thrash the user's input during validation, particularly if you want them to make corrections in another field.

Here's a wonderful pattern that most closely matched the validation that I needed to achieve. I'm not the original author, but I think it's well worth sharing as I found this problem to be very complex and without a concise or widely useful answer.
The following regex will catch widely used number and character combinations in a variety of global phone number formats:
/^\s*(?:\+?(\d{1,3}))?([-. (]*(\d{3})[-. )]*)?((\d{3})[-. ]*(\d{2,4})(?:[-.x ]*(\d+))?)\s*$/gm
Positive:
+42 555.123.4567
+1-(800)-123-4567
+7 555 1234567
+7(926)1234567
(926) 1234567
+79261234567
926 1234567
9261234567
1234567
123-4567
123-89-01
495 1234567
469 123 45 67
89261234567
8 (926) 1234567
926.123.4567
415-555-1234
650-555-2345
(416)555-3456
202 555 4567
4035555678
1 416 555 9292
Negative:
926 3 4
8 800 600-APPLE
Original source: http://www.regexr.com/38pvb

Have you had a look over at RegExLib?
Entering US phone number brought back quite a list of possibilities.

My attempt at an unrestrictive regex:
/^[+#*\(\)\[\]]*([0-9][ ext+-pw#*\(\)\[\]]*){6,45}$/
Accepts:
+(01) 123 (456) 789 ext555
123456
*44 123-456-789 [321]
123456
123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345
*****++[](][((( 123456tteexxttppww
Rejects:
mob 07777 777777
1234 567 890 after 5pm
john smith
(empty)
1234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456
911
It is up to you to sanitize it for display. After validating it could be a number though.

I found this to work quite well:
^\(*\+*[1-9]{0,3}\)*-*[1-9]{0,3}[-. /]*\(*[2-9]\d{2}\)*[-. /]*\d{3}[-. /]*\d{4} *e*x*t*\.* *\d{0,4}$
It works for these number formats:
1-234-567-8901
1-234-567-8901 x1234
1-234-567-8901 ext1234
1 (234) 567-8901
1.234.567.8901
1/234/567/8901
12345678901
1-234-567-8901 ext. 1234
(+351) 282 433 5050
Make sure to use global AND multiline flags to make sure.
Link: http://www.regexr.com/3bp4b

Here's my best try so far. It handles the formats above but I'm sure I'm missing some other possible formats.
^\d?(?:(?:[\+]?(?:[\d]{1,3}(?:[ ]+|[\-.])))?[(]?(?:[\d]{3})[\-/)]?(?:[ ]+)?)?(?:[a-zA-Z2-9][a-zA-Z0-9 \-.]{6,})(?:(?:[ ]+|[xX]|(i:ext[\.]?)){1,2}(?:[\d]{1,5}))?$

This is a simple Regular Expression pattern for Philippine Mobile Phone Numbers:
((\+[0-9]{2})|0)[.\- ]?9[0-9]{2}[.\- ]?[0-9]{3}[.\- ]?[0-9]{4}
or
((\+63)|0)[.\- ]?9[0-9]{2}[.\- ]?[0-9]{3}[.\- ]?[0-9]{4}
will match these:
+63.917.123.4567
+63-917-123-4567
+63 917 123 4567
+639171234567
09171234567
The first one will match ANY two digit country code, while the second one will match the Philippine country code exclusively.
Test it here: http://refiddle.com/1ox

If you're talking about form validation, the regexp to validate correct meaning as well as correct data is going to be extremely complex because of varying country and provider standards. It will also be hard to keep up to date.
I interpret the question as looking for a broadly valid pattern, which may not be internally consistent - for example having a valid set of numbers, but not validating that the trunk-line, exchange, etc. to the valid pattern for the country code prefix.
North America is straightforward, and for international I prefer to use an 'idiomatic' pattern which covers the ways in which people specify and remember their numbers:
^((((\(\d{3}\))|(\d{3}-))\d{3}-\d{4})|(\+?\d{2}((-| )\d{1,8}){1,5}))(( x| ext)\d{1,5}){0,1}$
The North American pattern makes sure that if one parenthesis is included both are. The international accounts for an optional initial '+' and country code. After that, you're in the idiom. Valid matches would be:
(xxx)xxx-xxxx
(xxx)-xxx-xxxx
(xxx)xxx-xxxx x123
12 1234 123 1 x1111
12 12 12 12 12
12 1 1234 123456 x12345
+12 1234 1234
+12 12 12 1234
+12 1234 5678
+12 12345678
This may be biased as my experience is limited to North America, Europe and a small bit of Asia.

My gut feeling is reinforced by the amount of replies to this topic - that there is a virtually infinite number of solutions to this problem, none of which are going to be elegant.
Honestly, I would recommend you don't try to validate phone numbers. Even if you could write a big, hairy validator that would allow all the different legitimate formats, it would end up allowing pretty much anything even remotely resembling a phone number in the first place.
In my opinion, the most elegant solution is to validate a minimum length, nothing more.

You'll have a hard time dealing with international numbers with a single/simple regex, see this post on the difficulties of international (and even north american) phone numbers.
You'll want to parse the first few digits to determine what the country code is, then act differently based on the country.
Beyond that - the list you gave does not include another common US format - leaving off the initial 1. Most cell phones in the US don't require it, and it'll start to baffle the younger generation unless they've dialed internationally.
You've correctly identified that it's a tricky problem...
-Adam

After reading through these answers, it looks like there wasn't a straightforward regular expression that can parse through a bunch of text and pull out phone numbers in any format (including international with and without the plus sign).
Here's what I used for a client project recently, where we had to convert all phone numbers in any format to tel: links.
So far, it's been working with everything they've thrown at it, but if errors come up, I'll update this answer.
Regex:
/(\+*\d{1,})*([ |\(])*(\d{3})[^\d]*(\d{3})[^\d]*(\d{4})/
PHP function to replace all phone numbers with tel: links (in case anyone is curious):
function phoneToTel($number) {
$return = preg_replace('/(\+*\d{1,})*([ |\(])*(\d{3})[^\d]*(\d{3})[^\d]*(\d{4})/', '$1 ($3) $4-$5', $number); // includes international
return $return;
}

I believe the Number::Phone::US and Regexp::Common (particularly the source of Regexp::Common::URI::RFC2806) Perl modules could help.
The question should probably be specified in a bit more detail to explain the purpose of validating the numbers. For instance, 911 is a valid number in the US, but 911x isn't for any value of x. That's so that the phone company can calculate when you are done dialing. There are several variations on this issue. But your regex doesn't check the area code portion, so that doesn't seem to be a concern.
Like validating email addresses, even if you have a valid result you can't know if it's assigned to someone until you try it.
If you are trying to validate user input, why not normalize the result and be done with it? If the user puts in a number you can't recognize as a valid number, either save it as inputted or strip out undailable characters. The Number::Phone::Normalize Perl module could be a source of inspiration.

Do a replace on formatting characters, then check the remaining for phone validity. In PHP,
$replace = array( ' ', '-', '/', '(', ')', ',', '.' ); //etc; as needed
preg_match( '/1?[0-9]{10}((ext|x)[0-9]{1,4})?/i', str_replace( $replace, '', $phone_num );
Breaking a complex regexp like this can be just as effective, but much more simple.

I work for a market research company and we have to filter these types of input alllll the time. You're complicating it too much. Just strip the non-alphanumeric chars, and see if there's an extension.
For further analysis you can subscribe to one of many providers that will give you access to a database of valid numbers as well as tell you if they're landlines or mobiles, disconnected, etc. It costs money.

I found this to be something interesting. I have not tested it but it looks as if it would work
<?php
/*
string validate_telephone_number (string $number, array $formats)
*/
function validate_telephone_number($number, $formats)
{
$format = trim(ereg_replace("[0-9]", "#", $number));
return (in_array($format, $formats)) ? true : false;
}
/* Usage Examples */
// List of possible formats: You can add new formats or modify the existing ones
$formats = array('###-###-####', '####-###-###',
'(###) ###-###', '####-####-####',
'##-###-####-####', '####-####', '###-###-###',
'#####-###-###', '##########');
$number = '08008-555-555';
if(validate_telephone_number($number, $formats))
{
echo $number.' is a valid phone number.';
}
echo "<br />";
$number = '123-555-555';
if(validate_telephone_number($number, $formats))
{
echo $number.' is a valid phone number.';
}
echo "<br />";
$number = '1800-1234-5678';
if(validate_telephone_number($number, $formats))
{
echo $number.' is a valid phone number.';
}
echo "<br />";
$number = '(800) 555-123';
if(validate_telephone_number($number, $formats))
{
echo $number.' is a valid phone number.';
}
echo "<br />";
$number = '1234567890';
if(validate_telephone_number($number, $formats))
{
echo $number.' is a valid phone number.';
}
?>

You would probably be better off using a Masked Input for this. That way users can ONLY enter numbers and you can format however you see fit. I'm not sure if this is for a web application, but if it is there is a very click jQuery plugin that offers some options for doing this.
http://digitalbush.com/projects/masked-input-plugin/
They even go over how to mask phone number inputs in their tutorial.

Here's one that works well in JavaScript. It's in a string because that's what the Dojo widget was expecting.
It matches a 10 digit North America NANP number with optional extension. Spaces, dashes and periods are accepted delimiters.
"^(\\(?\\d\\d\\d\\)?)( |-|\\.)?\\d\\d\\d( |-|\\.)?\\d{4,4}(( |-|\\.)?[ext\\.]+ ?\\d+)?$"

I was struggling with the same issue, trying to make my application future proof, but these guys got me going in the right direction. I'm not actually checking the number itself to see if it works or not, I'm just trying to make sure that a series of numbers was entered that may or may not have an extension.
Worst case scenario if the user had to pull an unformatted number from the XML file, they would still just type the numbers into the phone's numberpad 012345678x5, no real reason to keep it pretty. That kind of RegEx would come out something like this for me:
\d+ ?\w{0,9} ?\d+
01234467 extension 123456
01234567x123456
01234567890

My inclination is to agree that stripping non-digits and just accepting what's there is best. Maybe to ensure at least a couple digits are present, although that does prohibit something like an alphabetic phone number "ASK-JAKE" for example.
A couple simple perl expressions might be:
#f = /(\d+)/g;
tr/0-9//dc;
Use the first one to keep the digit groups together, which may give formatting clues. Use the second one to trivially toss all non-digits.
Is it a worry that there may need to be a pause and then more keys entered? Or something like 555-1212 (wait for the beep) 123?

pattern="^[\d|\+|\(]+[\)|\d|\s|-]*[\d]$"
validateat="onsubmit"
Must end with a digit, can begin with ( or + or a digit, and may contain + - ( or )

For anyone interested in doing something similar with Irish mobile phone numbers, here's a straightforward way of accomplishing it:
http://ilovenicii.com/?p=87
PHP
<?php
$pattern = "/^(083|086|085|086|087)\d{7}$/";
$phone = "087343266";
if (preg_match($pattern,$phone)) echo "Match";
else echo "Not match";
There is also a JQuery solution on that link.
EDIT:
jQuery solution:
$(function(){
//original field values
var field_values = {
//id : value
'url' : 'url',
'yourname' : 'yourname',
'email' : 'email',
'phone' : 'phone'
};
var url =$("input#url").val();
var yourname =$("input#yourname").val();
var email =$("input#email").val();
var phone =$("input#phone").val();
//inputfocus
$('input#url').inputfocus({ value: field_values['url'] });
$('input#yourname').inputfocus({ value: field_values['yourname'] });
$('input#email').inputfocus({ value: field_values['email'] });
$('input#phone').inputfocus({ value: field_values['phone'] });
//reset progress bar
$('#progress').css('width','0');
$('#progress_text').html('0% Complete');
//first_step
$('form').submit(function(){ return false; });
$('#submit_first').click(function(){
//remove classes
$('#first_step input').removeClass('error').removeClass('valid');
//ckeck if inputs aren't empty
var fields = $('#first_step input[type=text]');
var error = 0;
fields.each(function(){
var value = $(this).val();
if( value.length<12 || value==field_values[$(this).attr('id')] ) {
$(this).addClass('error');
$(this).effect("shake", { times:3 }, 50);
error++;
} else {
$(this).addClass('valid');
}
});
if(!error) {
if( $('#password').val() != $('#cpassword').val() ) {
$('#first_step input[type=password]').each(function(){
$(this).removeClass('valid').addClass('error');
$(this).effect("shake", { times:3 }, 50);
});
return false;
} else {
//update progress bar
$('#progress_text').html('33% Complete');
$('#progress').css('width','113px');
//slide steps
$('#first_step').slideUp();
$('#second_step').slideDown();
}
} else return false;
});
//second section
$('#submit_second').click(function(){
//remove classes
$('#second_step input').removeClass('error').removeClass('valid');
var emailPattern = /^[a-zA-Z0-9._-]+#[a-zA-Z0-9.-]+\.[a-zA-Z]{2,4}$/;
var fields = $('#second_step input[type=text]');
var error = 0;
fields.each(function(){
var value = $(this).val();
if( value.length<1 || value==field_values[$(this).attr('id')] || ( $(this).attr('id')=='email' && !emailPattern.test(value) ) ) {
$(this).addClass('error');
$(this).effect("shake", { times:3 }, 50);
error++;
} else {
$(this).addClass('valid');
}
function validatePhone(phone) {
var a = document.getElementById(phone).value;
var filter = /^[0-9-+]+$/;
if (filter.test(a)) {
return true;
}
else {
return false;
}
}
$('#phone').blur(function(e) {
if (validatePhone('txtPhone')) {
$('#spnPhoneStatus').html('Valid');
$('#spnPhoneStatus').css('color', 'green');
}
else {
$('#spnPhoneStatus').html('Invalid');
$('#spnPhoneStatus').css('color', 'red');
}
});
});
if(!error) {
//update progress bar
$('#progress_text').html('66% Complete');
$('#progress').css('width','226px');
//slide steps
$('#second_step').slideUp();
$('#fourth_step').slideDown();
} else return false;
});
$('#submit_second').click(function(){
//update progress bar
$('#progress_text').html('100% Complete');
$('#progress').css('width','339px');
//prepare the fourth step
var fields = new Array(
$('#url').val(),
$('#yourname').val(),
$('#email').val(),
$('#phone').val()
);
var tr = $('#fourth_step tr');
tr.each(function(){
//alert( fields[$(this).index()] )
$(this).children('td:nth-child(2)').html(fields[$(this).index()]);
});
//slide steps
$('#third_step').slideUp();
$('#fourth_step').slideDown();
});
$('#submit_fourth').click(function(){
url =$("input#url").val();
yourname =$("input#yourname").val();
email =$("input#email").val();
phone =$("input#phone").val();
//send information to server
var dataString = 'url='+ url + '&yourname=' + yourname + '&email=' + email + '&phone=' + phone;
alert (dataString);//return false;
$.ajax({
type: "POST",
url: "http://clients.socialnetworkingsolutions.com/infobox/contact/",
data: "url="+url+"&yourname="+yourname+"&email="+email+'&phone=' + phone,
cache: false,
success: function(data) {
console.log("form submitted");
alert("success");
}
});
return false;
});
//back button
$('.back').click(function(){
var container = $(this).parent('div'),
previous = container.prev();
switch(previous.attr('id')) {
case 'first_step' : $('#progress_text').html('0% Complete');
$('#progress').css('width','0px');
break;
case 'second_step': $('#progress_text').html('33% Complete');
$('#progress').css('width','113px');
break;
case 'third_step' : $('#progress_text').html('66% Complete');
$('#progress').css('width','226px');
break;
default: break;
}
$(container).slideUp();
$(previous).slideDown();
});
});
Source.

Parsing a formatted string with RegEx or similar

I have an application which sends a TCP message to a server, and gets one back.
The message it gets back is in this format:
0,"120"1,"Data Field 1"2,"2401"3,"Data Field 3"1403-1,"multiple
occurence 1"1403-2,"multiple occurence 2"99,""
So basically it is a set of fields concatenated together.
Each field has a tag, a comma, and a value - in that order.
The tag is the number, the value is in quotes, the comma seperates them.
0,"120"
0 is the tag, 120 is the value.
A complete message always starts with a 0 field and ends with 99,"" field.
To complicate things, some tags have dashes because they are split into more than 1 value.
The order of the numbers is not significant.
(For reference, this is a "Fedex Tagged Transaction" message).
So I'm looking for a decent way of validating that we have a "complete" message (ie has the 0 and 99 fields) - because it's from a TCP message I guess I have to account for not having received the full message yet.
Then splitting it up to get all the values I need.
The best I have come up with is for parsing is some poor regex and some cleaning-up afterwards.
The heart of it is this: (\d?\d?\d?\d?-?\d?\d,") to split it
string s = #"(\d?\d?\d?\d?-?\d?\d,"")";
string[] strArray = Regex.Split(receivedData, r);
Assert.AreEqual(14, strArray.Length, "Array length should be 14", since we have 7 fields.);
Dictionary<string, string> fields = new Dictionary<string, string>();
//Now put it into a dictionary which should be easier to work with than an array
for (int i = 0; i <= strArray.Length-2; i+=2)
{
fields.Add(strArray[i].Trim('"').Trim(','), strArray[i + 1].Trim('"'));
}
Which doesn't really work.
It has a lot of quotes and commas left over, and doesn't seem particularly well-formed...
I'm not good with Regex so I can't put together what I need it to do.
I don't even know if it is the best way.
Any help appreciated.

I suggest you use Regex.Matches rather than Regex.Split. This way you can iterate over all the matches, and use capture groups to just grab the data you want directly, while still maintaining structure. I provided a regex that should work for this below in the example:
MatchCollection matchlist = Regex.Matches(receivedData, #"(?<tag>\d+(?:-\d+)?),""(?<data>.*?)""");
foreach (Match match in matchlist)
{
string tag = match.Groups["tag"].Value;
string data = match.Groups["data"].Value;
}

Try this expression
\d*(-\d*)?,"[^"]*"
Match count: 7
0,"120"
1,"Data Field 1"
2,"2401"
3,"Data Field 3"
1403-1,"multiple occurence 1"
1403-2,"multiple occurence 2"
99,""

C# "Like" search similiar to SQL Query "LIKE"

Here's my scenario. I'm doing a phone number registration component which will reject some numbers with particular prefixes (Eg. "95973" or "95949"). I've stored these prefixes in the database already.
What I'd like to know is, is there any C# method which I can use to match the registration number with the prefixes I'd like to reject.
UPDATED WITH PSEUDO CODE
BEGIN
GET phone num FROM querystring
FOR EACH banned prefix IN DB
CHECK if phone num BEGINS WITH banned prefix
IF TRUE, RESPOND TO phone num WITH error message
ELSE, REGISTER phone num
END EACH
END

You may use String.StartWith method.
 string phone = "9182323243";
string[] prefix = {"93","94","85"};
if (prefix.Any(pre => phone.StartsWith(pre)))
    //Reject
else
    //Accept

Most simple:
var prefix = "95973";
var number = "95973-123456";
var reject = number.Contains(prefix);
var reject2 = number.StartsWith(prefix);

The quick and unefficient way, that describes what you are doing, is the following LINQ line:
// load all prefixes
IEnumerable<string> prefixes = GetPrefixes();
// does Any prefix exists such that "number" starts with it?
bool reject = prefixes.Any(p => number.StartsWith(p))
If you know that your prefix is always long 5 you can do with a very efficient exact lookup:
string number = "1234567889";
// get the prefix part
string prefix = number.Substring(0, 5);
// check if prefixes contains it
bool reject = prefixes.Contains(prefix);
In any case, if you don't update prefixes too often and they are not a huge amount (if they are long 5 chars they are not a huge amount:)) I suggest you to load them from the DB in memory, say in a HashSet<string> and use the latter approach, it's going to be bleezing fast.

I already have experience writting OS for PBX. So, the best way in your situation is writting rules like this:
* - any numer of digits, may be 0
? - one any digit
Example:
rule: "23948??", Number should starts from "23948" and should contains 2 digits after
rule: "9*", all numbers, starts from digit 9 (in this case PBX must to wait user input for example 2 seconds after each entered digit and before next one).
So, in this case you must to use Regex

Is there a way to match a set of groups in any order in a regex?

I looked through the related questions, there were quite a few but I don't think any answered this question. I am very new to Regex but I'm trying to get better so bear with me please. I am trying to match several groups in a string, but in any order. Is this something I should be using Regex for? If so, how? If it matters, I plan to use these in IronPython.
EDIT: Someone asked me to be more specific, so here:
I want to use re.match with a regex like:
\[image\s*(?(#alt:(?<alt>.*?);).*(#title:(?<title>.*?);))*.*\](?<arg>.*?)\[\/image\]
But it will only match the named groups when they are in the right order, and separated with a space. I would like to be able to match the named groups in any order, as long as they appear where they do now in the regex.
A typical string that will be applied to this might look like:
[image #alt:alien; #title:reddit alien;]http://www.reddit.com/alien.png[/image]
But I should have no problem matching:
[image #title:reddit alien; #alt:alien;]http://www.reddit.com/alien.png[/image]
So the 'attributes' (things that come between '#' and ';' in the first 'tag') should be matched in any order, as long as they both appear.

The answer to the question in your title is "no" -- to match N groups "in any order", the regex should have an "or" (the | feature in the regex pattern) among the N! (N factorial) possible permutations of the groups, the product of all integers from 1 to N. That's a number which grows extremely fast -- for N just equal 6, it's already 720, for 7, it's almost 5000, and so on at a dizzying pace -- so this approach is totally impractical for any N which isn't really tiny.
The solutions may be many, depending on what you want the groups to be separated with. Let's say, for example, that you don't care (if you DO care, edit your question with better specs).
In this case, if overlapping matches are impossible or are OK with you, make N separate regular expressions, one per group -- say these N compiled RE objects are in a list named grps, then
mos = [g.search(thestring) for g in grps]
is the list of match objects for the groups (None for a group which doesn't match). With the mos list you can do all sorts of checks and/or further manipulations, for example all(mos) is True if and only if all the groups matched, in which case [m.group() for m in mos] is the list of substrings that have been matched, and so on, and so forth.
If you need non-overlapping matches, it's a bit more complicated -- you may extract the boundaries of all possible matches for each group, then seeing if there's a way to extract from these N lists a set of N intervals, one per lists, so that no two of them are pairwise intersecting. This is a somewhat subtle algorithm (if you want reasonable speed for a large N, of course), so I think it's worth a separate question, and in any case it's not worth discussing right here when the very issue of whether it's needed or not depends on so incredibly many factors that you have not specified.
So, please edit your question with more precise specifications, first, and then things can perhaps be clarified to provide you with the code and/or algorithms you need.
Edit: I see the OP has now clarified the issue at least of the extent of providing an example -- although, confusingly, he offers a RE pattern example and a string example that should not match, regardless of ordering (the RE specifies the presence of a substring #title which the example string does not have -- puzzling!).
Anyway, if the number of groups in the example (two which appear to be interchangeable, one which appears to have to occur in a specific spot) is representative of the OP's actual problems, then the total number of permutations of interest is just two, so joining the "just two" permutations with a vertical bar | would of course be quite feasible. Is that the case in the OP's real problems, though...?
Edit: if the number of permutations of interest is tiny, here's an example of one way to avoid the problem of repeated group names in the pattern (syntax requires Python 2.7 or better, but that's just for the final "dict comprehension" -- the same functionality is available in many previous version of Python, just with the less elegant dict(('a', ... syntax;-)...:
>>> r = re.compile(r'(?P<a1>a.*?a).*?(?P<b1>b.*?b)|(?P<b2>b.*?b).*?(?P<a2>a.*?a)')
>>> m = r.search('zzzakkkavvvbxxxbnnn')
>>> g = m.groupdict()
>>> d = {'a':(g.get('a1') or g.get('a2')), 'b':(g.get('b1') or g.get('b2'))}
>>> d
{'a': 'akkka', 'b': 'bxxxb'}

This is very similar to one of the key problems with using regular expressions to parse HTML - there is no requirement that attributes always be specified in the same order, and many tags have surprising attributes (like <br clear="all">. So it seems you are working with a very similar markup syntax.
Pyparsing addresses this problem in an indirect way - instead of trying to parse all different permutations, parse the general "#attrname:attribute value;" syntax, and keep track of the attributes keys and values in an attribute mapping data structure. The mapping makes it easy to get the "title" attribute, regardless of whether it came first or last in the image tag. This behavior is built into the pyparsing API methods, makeHTMLTags and makeXMLTags.
Of course, this markup is not XML, but a similar approach gives some pretty easy to work with results:
text = """[image #alt:alien; #title:reddit alien;]http://www.reddit.com/alien1.png[/image]
But I should have no problem matching:
[image #title:reddit alien; #alt:alien;]http://www.reddit.com/alien2.png[/image]
"""
from pyparsing import Suppress, Group, Word, alphas, SkipTo, Dict, ZeroOrMore
LBRACK,RBRACK,COLON,SEMI,AT = map(Suppress,"[]:;#")
tagAttribute = Group(AT + Word(alphas) + COLON + SkipTo(SEMI) + SEMI)
imageTag = LBRACK + "image" + Dict(ZeroOrMore(tagAttribute)) + RBRACK
imageLink = imageTag + SkipTo("[/image]")("text")
for taginfo in imageLink.searchString(text):
print taginfo.alt
print taginfo.title
print taginfo.text
print
Prints:
alien
reddit alien
http://www.reddit.com/alien1.png
alien
reddit alien
http://www.reddit.com/alien2.png