RegEx pattern not asserting true
2
I am trying to compare the below string to a regular expression pattern in my java project:
2018-11-12 12:02:04.075
I've passed the above string into an online regular expression generator to generate the following pattern:
((?:2|1)d{3}(?:-|/)(?:(?:0[1-9])|(?:1[0-2]))(?:-|/)(?:(?:0[1-9])|(?:[1-2][0-9])|(?:3[0-1]))(?:T|s)(?:(?:[0-1][0-9])|(?:2[0-3])):(?:[0-5][0-9]):(?:[0-5][0-9]))
Below is my ASSERT statement, but when I run this test I get an assertion error:
assertTrue(rs.getString(this.columnName).matches("((?:2|1)\d{3}(?:-|\/)(?:(?:0[1-9])|(?:1[0-2]))(?:-|\/)(?:(?:0[1-9])|(?:[1-2][0-9])|(?:3[0-1]))(?:T|\s)(?:(?:[0-1][0-9])|(?:2[0-3])):(?:[0-5][0-9]):(?:[0-5][0-9]))"));
What changes do I need to make to get this test to pass? Is it a problem with my regex?
java regex assert
asked Nov 12 '18 at 12:13
user9847788user9847788
132
add a comment |
2
I am trying to compare the below string to a regular expression pattern in my java project:
2018-11-12 12:02:04.075
I've passed the above string into an online regular expression generator to generate the following pattern:
((?:2|1)d{3}(?:-|/)(?:(?:0[1-9])|(?:1[0-2]))(?:-|/)(?:(?:0[1-9])|(?:[1-2][0-9])|(?:3[0-1]))(?:T|s)(?:(?:[0-1][0-9])|(?:2[0-3])):(?:[0-5][0-9]):(?:[0-5][0-9]))
Below is my ASSERT statement, but when I run this test I get an assertion error:
assertTrue(rs.getString(this.columnName).matches("((?:2|1)\d{3}(?:-|\/)(?:(?:0[1-9])|(?:1[0-2]))(?:-|\/)(?:(?:0[1-9])|(?:[1-2][0-9])|(?:3[0-1]))(?:T|\s)(?:(?:[0-1][0-9])|(?:2[0-3])):(?:[0-5][0-9]):(?:[0-5][0-9]))"));
What changes do I need to make to get this test to pass? Is it a problem with my regex?
java regex assert
asked Nov 12 '18 at 12:13
user9847788user9847788
132
1
I don't know the defaults for Java'smatchesmethod but are you sure it isn't trying to match the whole string?
– Lieven Keersmaekers
Nov 12 '18 at 12:27
1
This seems a lot more complicated than just using a DateTimeFormatter. For that matter, why not define your database column as a datetime or timestamp column?
– VGR
Nov 12 '18 at 15:50
add a comment |
2
2
2
I am trying to compare the below string to a regular expression pattern in my java project:
2018-11-12 12:02:04.075
I've passed the above string into an online regular expression generator to generate the following pattern:
((?:2|1)d{3}(?:-|/)(?:(?:0[1-9])|(?:1[0-2]))(?:-|/)(?:(?:0[1-9])|(?:[1-2][0-9])|(?:3[0-1]))(?:T|s)(?:(?:[0-1][0-9])|(?:2[0-3])):(?:[0-5][0-9]):(?:[0-5][0-9]))
Below is my ASSERT statement, but when I run this test I get an assertion error:
assertTrue(rs.getString(this.columnName).matches("((?:2|1)\d{3}(?:-|\/)(?:(?:0[1-9])|(?:1[0-2]))(?:-|\/)(?:(?:0[1-9])|(?:[1-2][0-9])|(?:3[0-1]))(?:T|\s)(?:(?:[0-1][0-9])|(?:2[0-3])):(?:[0-5][0-9]):(?:[0-5][0-9]))"));
What changes do I need to make to get this test to pass? Is it a problem with my regex?
java regex assert
asked Nov 12 '18 at 12:13
user9847788user9847788
132
I am trying to compare the below string to a regular expression pattern in my java project:
2018-11-12 12:02:04.075
I've passed the above string into an online regular expression generator to generate the following pattern:
((?:2|1)d{3}(?:-|/)(?:(?:0[1-9])|(?:1[0-2]))(?:-|/)(?:(?:0[1-9])|(?:[1-2][0-9])|(?:3[0-1]))(?:T|s)(?:(?:[0-1][0-9])|(?:2[0-3])):(?:[0-5][0-9]):(?:[0-5][0-9]))
Below is my ASSERT statement, but when I run this test I get an assertion error:
assertTrue(rs.getString(this.columnName).matches("((?:2|1)\d{3}(?:-|\/)(?:(?:0[1-9])|(?:1[0-2]))(?:-|\/)(?:(?:0[1-9])|(?:[1-2][0-9])|(?:3[0-1]))(?:T|\s)(?:(?:[0-1][0-9])|(?:2[0-3])):(?:[0-5][0-9]):(?:[0-5][0-9]))"));
What changes do I need to make to get this test to pass? Is it a problem with my regex?
java regex assert
java regex assert
asked Nov 12 '18 at 12:13
user9847788user9847788
132
asked Nov 12 '18 at 12:13
user9847788user9847788
132
asked Nov 12 '18 at 12:13
user9847788user9847788
132
asked Nov 12 '18 at 12:13
user9847788user9847788
132
asked Nov 12 '18 at 12:13
user9847788user9847788
132
132
1
I don't know the defaults for Java'smatchesmethod but are you sure it isn't trying to match the whole string?
– Lieven Keersmaekers
Nov 12 '18 at 12:27
1
This seems a lot more complicated than just using a DateTimeFormatter. For that matter, why not define your database column as a datetime or timestamp column?
– VGR
Nov 12 '18 at 15:50
add a comment |
1
I don't know the defaults for Java'smatchesmethod but are you sure it isn't trying to match the whole string?
– Lieven Keersmaekers
Nov 12 '18 at 12:27
1
This seems a lot more complicated than just using a DateTimeFormatter. For that matter, why not define your database column as a datetime or timestamp column?
– VGR
Nov 12 '18 at 15:50
1
1
I don't know the defaults for Java's
matches method but are you sure it isn't trying to match the whole string?– Lieven Keersmaekers
Nov 12 '18 at 12:27
I don't know the defaults for Java's
matches method but are you sure it isn't trying to match the whole string?– Lieven Keersmaekers
Nov 12 '18 at 12:27
1
1
This seems a lot more complicated than just using a DateTimeFormatter. For that matter, why not define your database column as a datetime or timestamp column?
– VGR
Nov 12 '18 at 15:50
This seems a lot more complicated than just using a DateTimeFormatter. For that matter, why not define your database column as a datetime or timestamp column?
– VGR
Nov 12 '18 at 15:50
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
0
Try using one of the following regexes:
((?:2|1)d{3}(?:-|/)(?:(?:0[1-9])|(?:1[0-2]))(?:-|/)(?:(?:0[1-9])|(?:[1-2][0-9])|(?:3[0-1]))(?:T|s)(?:(?:[0-1][0-9])|(?:2[0-3])):(?:[0-5][0-9]):(?:[0-5][0-9].(?:[0-9][0-9][0-9])))
or
((?:2|1)d{3}(?:-|/)(?:(?:0[1-9])|(?:1[0-2]))(?:-|/)(?:(?:0[1-9])|(?:[1-2][0-9])|(?:3[0-1]))(?:T|s)(?:(?:[0-1][0-9])|(?:2[0-3])):(?:[0-5][0-9]):(?:[0-5][0-9]).(d{3}))
or
(d{4})-(d{2})-(d{2}) (d{2}):(d{2}):(d{2}).(d{3})
edited Nov 12 '18 at 14:24
Sven Hakvoort
2,0261520
answered Nov 12 '18 at 12:26
vigneshvignesh
161
Thanks, the first one worked for me. May I ask what the difference is between these 3 options. And is there a preferred one? I would think the shorter one would be preferrable?
– user9847788
Nov 12 '18 at 12:32
first one will match date-time with different separators
– Aeiman Bakeer
Nov 12 '18 at 13:00
add a comment |
2
You are missing the miliseconds part. Try this:
((?:2|1)\d{3}(?:-|\/)(?:(?:0[1-9])|(?:1[0-2]))(?:-|\/)(?:(?:0[1-9])|(?:[1-2][0-9])|(?:3[0-1]))(?:T|\s)(?:(?:[0-1][0-9])|(?:2[0-3])):(?:[0-5][0-9]):(?:[0-5][0-9])\.\d{3})
answered Nov 12 '18 at 12:27
Evgeni EnchevEvgeni Enchev
2015
add a comment |
0
Try this
[12]\d{3}-(0[1-9]|1[12])-(0[1-9]|1[0-9]|2[0-9]|3[01])\s([01][0-9]|2[0-4]):[0-5][0-9]:[0-5][0-9]\.\d{3}
answered Nov 12 '18 at 13:03
Aeiman BakeerAeiman Bakeer
40037
This answer would be improved by explaining why the particular pattern meets the requirements. Also, by not checking the first digit, this will match9999-46-98 76:62:99.000, so I think it is too broad of a match.
– KevinO
Nov 12 '18 at 15:57
@KevinO the question was to match a specific date-time format, which used "-" as separator, and did not specify year range, though I've limited it upon your suggestion
– Aeiman Bakeer
Nov 13 '18 at 17:05
I think this is improved. While the specific text did not specify a year range, the OP's attempt was to try to limit the possible validity, so it seems appropriate to keep close to what the OP at least attempted.
– KevinO
Nov 13 '18 at 17:08
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function () {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function () {
StackExchange.snippets.init();
});
});
}, "code-snippets");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "1"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
draft saved
draft discarded
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53261980%2fregex-pattern-not-asserting-true%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
0
Try using one of the following regexes:
((?:2|1)d{3}(?:-|/)(?:(?:0[1-9])|(?:1[0-2]))(?:-|/)(?:(?:0[1-9])|(?:[1-2][0-9])|(?:3[0-1]))(?:T|s)(?:(?:[0-1][0-9])|(?:2[0-3])):(?:[0-5][0-9]):(?:[0-5][0-9].(?:[0-9][0-9][0-9])))
or
((?:2|1)d{3}(?:-|/)(?:(?:0[1-9])|(?:1[0-2]))(?:-|/)(?:(?:0[1-9])|(?:[1-2][0-9])|(?:3[0-1]))(?:T|s)(?:(?:[0-1][0-9])|(?:2[0-3])):(?:[0-5][0-9]):(?:[0-5][0-9]).(d{3}))
or
(d{4})-(d{2})-(d{2}) (d{2}):(d{2}):(d{2}).(d{3})
edited Nov 12 '18 at 14:24
Sven Hakvoort
2,0261520
answered Nov 12 '18 at 12:26
vigneshvignesh
161
Thanks, the first one worked for me. May I ask what the difference is between these 3 options. And is there a preferred one? I would think the shorter one would be preferrable?
– user9847788
Nov 12 '18 at 12:32
first one will match date-time with different separators
– Aeiman Bakeer
Nov 12 '18 at 13:00
add a comment |
0
Try using one of the following regexes:
((?:2|1)d{3}(?:-|/)(?:(?:0[1-9])|(?:1[0-2]))(?:-|/)(?:(?:0[1-9])|(?:[1-2][0-9])|(?:3[0-1]))(?:T|s)(?:(?:[0-1][0-9])|(?:2[0-3])):(?:[0-5][0-9]):(?:[0-5][0-9].(?:[0-9][0-9][0-9])))
or
((?:2|1)d{3}(?:-|/)(?:(?:0[1-9])|(?:1[0-2]))(?:-|/)(?:(?:0[1-9])|(?:[1-2][0-9])|(?:3[0-1]))(?:T|s)(?:(?:[0-1][0-9])|(?:2[0-3])):(?:[0-5][0-9]):(?:[0-5][0-9]).(d{3}))
or
(d{4})-(d{2})-(d{2}) (d{2}):(d{2}):(d{2}).(d{3})
edited Nov 12 '18 at 14:24
Sven Hakvoort
2,0261520
answered Nov 12 '18 at 12:26
vigneshvignesh
161
Thanks, the first one worked for me. May I ask what the difference is between these 3 options. And is there a preferred one? I would think the shorter one would be preferrable?
– user9847788
Nov 12 '18 at 12:32
first one will match date-time with different separators
– Aeiman Bakeer
Nov 12 '18 at 13:00
add a comment |
0
0
0
Try using one of the following regexes:
((?:2|1)d{3}(?:-|/)(?:(?:0[1-9])|(?:1[0-2]))(?:-|/)(?:(?:0[1-9])|(?:[1-2][0-9])|(?:3[0-1]))(?:T|s)(?:(?:[0-1][0-9])|(?:2[0-3])):(?:[0-5][0-9]):(?:[0-5][0-9].(?:[0-9][0-9][0-9])))
or
((?:2|1)d{3}(?:-|/)(?:(?:0[1-9])|(?:1[0-2]))(?:-|/)(?:(?:0[1-9])|(?:[1-2][0-9])|(?:3[0-1]))(?:T|s)(?:(?:[0-1][0-9])|(?:2[0-3])):(?:[0-5][0-9]):(?:[0-5][0-9]).(d{3}))
or
(d{4})-(d{2})-(d{2}) (d{2}):(d{2}):(d{2}).(d{3})
edited Nov 12 '18 at 14:24
Sven Hakvoort
2,0261520
answered Nov 12 '18 at 12:26
vigneshvignesh
161
Try using one of the following regexes:
((?:2|1)d{3}(?:-|/)(?:(?:0[1-9])|(?:1[0-2]))(?:-|/)(?:(?:0[1-9])|(?:[1-2][0-9])|(?:3[0-1]))(?:T|s)(?:(?:[0-1][0-9])|(?:2[0-3])):(?:[0-5][0-9]):(?:[0-5][0-9].(?:[0-9][0-9][0-9])))
or
((?:2|1)d{3}(?:-|/)(?:(?:0[1-9])|(?:1[0-2]))(?:-|/)(?:(?:0[1-9])|(?:[1-2][0-9])|(?:3[0-1]))(?:T|s)(?:(?:[0-1][0-9])|(?:2[0-3])):(?:[0-5][0-9]):(?:[0-5][0-9]).(d{3}))
or
(d{4})-(d{2})-(d{2}) (d{2}):(d{2}):(d{2}).(d{3})
edited Nov 12 '18 at 14:24
Sven Hakvoort
2,0261520
answered Nov 12 '18 at 12:26
vigneshvignesh
161
edited Nov 12 '18 at 14:24
Sven Hakvoort
2,0261520
edited Nov 12 '18 at 14:24
Sven Hakvoort
2,0261520
edited Nov 12 '18 at 14:24
Sven Hakvoort
2,0261520
2,0261520
answered Nov 12 '18 at 12:26
vigneshvignesh
161
answered Nov 12 '18 at 12:26
vigneshvignesh
161
answered Nov 12 '18 at 12:26
vigneshvignesh
161
161
Thanks, the first one worked for me. May I ask what the difference is between these 3 options. And is there a preferred one? I would think the shorter one would be preferrable?
– user9847788
Nov 12 '18 at 12:32
first one will match date-time with different separators
– Aeiman Bakeer
Nov 12 '18 at 13:00
add a comment |
Thanks, the first one worked for me. May I ask what the difference is between these 3 options. And is there a preferred one? I would think the shorter one would be preferrable?
– user9847788
Nov 12 '18 at 12:32
first one will match date-time with different separators
– Aeiman Bakeer
Nov 12 '18 at 13:00
Thanks, the first one worked for me. May I ask what the difference is between these 3 options. And is there a preferred one? I would think the shorter one would be preferrable?
– user9847788
Nov 12 '18 at 12:32
Thanks, the first one worked for me. May I ask what the difference is between these 3 options. And is there a preferred one? I would think the shorter one would be preferrable?
– user9847788
Nov 12 '18 at 12:32
first one will match date-time with different separators
– Aeiman Bakeer
Nov 12 '18 at 13:00
first one will match date-time with different separators
– Aeiman Bakeer
Nov 12 '18 at 13:00
add a comment |
2
You are missing the miliseconds part. Try this:
((?:2|1)\d{3}(?:-|\/)(?:(?:0[1-9])|(?:1[0-2]))(?:-|\/)(?:(?:0[1-9])|(?:[1-2][0-9])|(?:3[0-1]))(?:T|\s)(?:(?:[0-1][0-9])|(?:2[0-3])):(?:[0-5][0-9]):(?:[0-5][0-9])\.\d{3})
answered Nov 12 '18 at 12:27
Evgeni EnchevEvgeni Enchev
2015
add a comment |
2
You are missing the miliseconds part. Try this:
((?:2|1)\d{3}(?:-|\/)(?:(?:0[1-9])|(?:1[0-2]))(?:-|\/)(?:(?:0[1-9])|(?:[1-2][0-9])|(?:3[0-1]))(?:T|\s)(?:(?:[0-1][0-9])|(?:2[0-3])):(?:[0-5][0-9]):(?:[0-5][0-9])\.\d{3})
answered Nov 12 '18 at 12:27
Evgeni EnchevEvgeni Enchev
2015
add a comment |
2
2
2
You are missing the miliseconds part. Try this:
((?:2|1)\d{3}(?:-|\/)(?:(?:0[1-9])|(?:1[0-2]))(?:-|\/)(?:(?:0[1-9])|(?:[1-2][0-9])|(?:3[0-1]))(?:T|\s)(?:(?:[0-1][0-9])|(?:2[0-3])):(?:[0-5][0-9]):(?:[0-5][0-9])\.\d{3})
answered Nov 12 '18 at 12:27
Evgeni EnchevEvgeni Enchev
2015
You are missing the miliseconds part. Try this:
((?:2|1)\d{3}(?:-|\/)(?:(?:0[1-9])|(?:1[0-2]))(?:-|\/)(?:(?:0[1-9])|(?:[1-2][0-9])|(?:3[0-1]))(?:T|\s)(?:(?:[0-1][0-9])|(?:2[0-3])):(?:[0-5][0-9]):(?:[0-5][0-9])\.\d{3})
answered Nov 12 '18 at 12:27
Evgeni EnchevEvgeni Enchev
2015
answered Nov 12 '18 at 12:27
Evgeni EnchevEvgeni Enchev
2015
answered Nov 12 '18 at 12:27
Evgeni EnchevEvgeni Enchev
2015
answered Nov 12 '18 at 12:27
Evgeni EnchevEvgeni Enchev
2015
2015
add a comment |
add a comment |
0
Try this
[12]\d{3}-(0[1-9]|1[12])-(0[1-9]|1[0-9]|2[0-9]|3[01])\s([01][0-9]|2[0-4]):[0-5][0-9]:[0-5][0-9]\.\d{3}
answered Nov 12 '18 at 13:03
Aeiman BakeerAeiman Bakeer
40037
This answer would be improved by explaining why the particular pattern meets the requirements. Also, by not checking the first digit, this will match9999-46-98 76:62:99.000, so I think it is too broad of a match.
– KevinO
Nov 12 '18 at 15:57
@KevinO the question was to match a specific date-time format, which used "-" as separator, and did not specify year range, though I've limited it upon your suggestion
– Aeiman Bakeer
Nov 13 '18 at 17:05
I think this is improved. While the specific text did not specify a year range, the OP's attempt was to try to limit the possible validity, so it seems appropriate to keep close to what the OP at least attempted.
– KevinO
Nov 13 '18 at 17:08
add a comment |
0
Try this
[12]\d{3}-(0[1-9]|1[12])-(0[1-9]|1[0-9]|2[0-9]|3[01])\s([01][0-9]|2[0-4]):[0-5][0-9]:[0-5][0-9]\.\d{3}
answered Nov 12 '18 at 13:03
Aeiman BakeerAeiman Bakeer
40037
This answer would be improved by explaining why the particular pattern meets the requirements. Also, by not checking the first digit, this will match9999-46-98 76:62:99.000, so I think it is too broad of a match.
– KevinO
Nov 12 '18 at 15:57
@KevinO the question was to match a specific date-time format, which used "-" as separator, and did not specify year range, though I've limited it upon your suggestion
– Aeiman Bakeer
Nov 13 '18 at 17:05
I think this is improved. While the specific text did not specify a year range, the OP's attempt was to try to limit the possible validity, so it seems appropriate to keep close to what the OP at least attempted.
– KevinO
Nov 13 '18 at 17:08
add a comment |
0
0
0
Try this
[12]\d{3}-(0[1-9]|1[12])-(0[1-9]|1[0-9]|2[0-9]|3[01])\s([01][0-9]|2[0-4]):[0-5][0-9]:[0-5][0-9]\.\d{3}
answered Nov 12 '18 at 13:03
Aeiman BakeerAeiman Bakeer
40037
Try this
[12]\d{3}-(0[1-9]|1[12])-(0[1-9]|1[0-9]|2[0-9]|3[01])\s([01][0-9]|2[0-4]):[0-5][0-9]:[0-5][0-9]\.\d{3}
answered Nov 12 '18 at 13:03
Aeiman BakeerAeiman Bakeer
40037
edited Nov 13 '18 at 17:36
answered Nov 12 '18 at 13:03
Aeiman BakeerAeiman Bakeer
40037
answered Nov 12 '18 at 13:03
Aeiman BakeerAeiman Bakeer
40037
answered Nov 12 '18 at 13:03
Aeiman BakeerAeiman Bakeer
40037
40037
This answer would be improved by explaining why the particular pattern meets the requirements. Also, by not checking the first digit, this will match9999-46-98 76:62:99.000, so I think it is too broad of a match.
– KevinO
Nov 12 '18 at 15:57
@KevinO the question was to match a specific date-time format, which used "-" as separator, and did not specify year range, though I've limited it upon your suggestion
– Aeiman Bakeer
Nov 13 '18 at 17:05
I think this is improved. While the specific text did not specify a year range, the OP's attempt was to try to limit the possible validity, so it seems appropriate to keep close to what the OP at least attempted.
– KevinO
Nov 13 '18 at 17:08
add a comment |
This answer would be improved by explaining why the particular pattern meets the requirements. Also, by not checking the first digit, this will match9999-46-98 76:62:99.000, so I think it is too broad of a match.
– KevinO
Nov 12 '18 at 15:57
@KevinO the question was to match a specific date-time format, which used "-" as separator, and did not specify year range, though I've limited it upon your suggestion
– Aeiman Bakeer
Nov 13 '18 at 17:05
I think this is improved. While the specific text did not specify a year range, the OP's attempt was to try to limit the possible validity, so it seems appropriate to keep close to what the OP at least attempted.
– KevinO
Nov 13 '18 at 17:08
This answer would be improved by explaining why the particular pattern meets the requirements. Also, by not checking the first digit, this will match
9999-46-98 76:62:99.000, so I think it is too broad of a match.– KevinO
Nov 12 '18 at 15:57
This answer would be improved by explaining why the particular pattern meets the requirements. Also, by not checking the first digit, this will match
9999-46-98 76:62:99.000, so I think it is too broad of a match.– KevinO
Nov 12 '18 at 15:57
@KevinO the question was to match a specific date-time format, which used "-" as separator, and did not specify year range, though I've limited it upon your suggestion
– Aeiman Bakeer
Nov 13 '18 at 17:05
@KevinO the question was to match a specific date-time format, which used "-" as separator, and did not specify year range, though I've limited it upon your suggestion
– Aeiman Bakeer
Nov 13 '18 at 17:05
I think this is improved. While the specific text did not specify a year range, the OP's attempt was to try to limit the possible validity, so it seems appropriate to keep close to what the OP at least attempted.
– KevinO
Nov 13 '18 at 17:08
I think this is improved. While the specific text did not specify a year range, the OP's attempt was to try to limit the possible validity, so it seems appropriate to keep close to what the OP at least attempted.
– KevinO
Nov 13 '18 at 17:08
add a comment |
draft saved
draft discarded
Thanks for contributing an answer to Stack Overflow!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
draft saved
draft discarded
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53261980%2fregex-pattern-not-asserting-true%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
1
I don't know the defaults for Java's
matchesmethod but are you sure it isn't trying to match the whole string?– Lieven Keersmaekers
Nov 12 '18 at 12:27
1
This seems a lot more complicated than just using a DateTimeFormatter. For that matter, why not define your database column as a datetime or timestamp column?
– VGR
Nov 12 '18 at 15:50