Regular expression issues in 6.1.2

[Mike Strout]

I am a bit of a regular expression junkie and I am wondering if others like me have found the transition to 6.1x frustrating|disappointing?

I found the thread below, but because it is old I thought I would create a new one with some more findings…

https://usspvlclovertch2.infor.com/viewtopic.php?t=7501&highlight=regular+expressions

When I am looking for all messages that contain one of 10 client codes in PV1-3, I would typically use something like this…

PV1|1||(0100|0375|0335|0350|0455|0530|0590|0625|0675|9999)|

…it fails, but if I do this…

PV1|1||(0100|0375|0335|0350|0455|0530|0590|0625|0675)|

…it correctly returns messages. Apparently the regex doesn’t like more than 9 options in a group.

I’ve found quite a few other issues that I don’t have at my fingertips right now, but I know one thing for sure…I don’t trust regular expression results much anymore.

Topic

[Charlie Bursell]

Mike:  

Are you speaking just of the SMAT GUI?  Because from Tcl in both 6.1 and 6.2 it works.

If from SMAT, is it regular SMAT or SMATDB?

tcl>set PV1 {PV1|1||9999|4|5|6}

PV1|1||9999|4|5|6

tcl>regexp — {PV1|1||(0100|0375|0335|0350|0455|0530|0590|0625|0675|9999)|} $PV1

1

It also works using my hcismatdb script.  I am having problems with the SMAT DB GUI so I cannot test from there.

I would think you would make the recexp a bit more generic.  What if PV1.1 not equal 1 or PV1.2 not empty?

[Max Drown (Infor)]

Mike, I would highly encourage you to create an Infor Xtreme ticket about your regexp findings so we (Infor) can work to improve the searching capabilities.

-- Max Drown (Infor)

[Author]

Replies