We Keep Coding

Exact search of a string that has parenthesis using regex

I am new to regexes.
I have the following string : \n(941)\n364\nShackle\n(941)\nRivet\n105\nTop
Out of this string, I want to extract Rivet and I already have (941) as a string in a variable.
My thought process was like this:
Find all the (941)s
filter the results by checking if the string after (941) is followed by \n, followed by a word, and ending with \n
I made a regex for the 2nd part: \n[\w\s\'\d\-\/\.]+$\n.
The problem I am facing is that because of the parenthesis in (941) the regex is taking 941 as a group. In the 3rd step the regex may be wrong, which I can fix later, but 1st I needed help in finding the 2nd (941) so then I can apply the 3rd step on that.
PS.
I know I can use python string methods like find and then loop over the searches, but I wanted to see if this can be done directly using regex only.
I have tried the following regex: (?:...), (941){1} and the make regex literal character \ like this \(941\) with no useful results. Maybe I am using them wrong.
Just wanted to know if it is possible to be done using regex. Though it might be useful for others too or a good share for future viewers.
Thanks!

Assuming:
You want to avoid matching only digits;
Want to match a substring made of word-characters (thus including possible digits);
Try to escape the variable and use it in the regular expression through f-string:
import re
s = '\n(941)\n364\nShackle\n(941)\nRivet\n105\nTop'
var1 = '(941)'
var2 = re.escape(var1)
m = re.findall(fr'{var2}\n(?!\d+\n)(\w+)', s)[0]
print(m)
Prints:
Rivet

If you have text in a variable that should be matched exactly, use re.escape() to escape it when substituting into the regexp.
s = '\n(941)\n364\nShackle\n(941)\nRivet\n105\nTop'
num = '(941)'
re.findall(rf'(?<=\n{re.escape(num)}\n)[\w\s\'\d\-\/\.]+(?=\n)', s)
This puts (941)\n in a lookbehind, so it's not included in the match. This avoids a problem with the \n at the end of one match overlapping with the \n at the beginning of the next.

capture anything but string [duplicate]

I know it's possible to match a word and then reverse the matches using other tools (e.g. grep -v). However, is it possible to match lines that do not contain a specific word, e.g. hede, using a regular expression?
Input:
hoho
hihi
haha
hede
Code:
grep "<Regex for 'doesn't contain hede'>" input
Desired output:
hoho
hihi
haha

The notion that regex doesn't support inverse matching is not entirely true. You can mimic this behavior by using negative look-arounds:
^((?!hede).)*$
The regex above will match any string, or line without a line break, not containing the (sub)string 'hede'. As mentioned, this is not something regex is "good" at (or should do), but still, it is possible.
And if you need to match line break chars as well, use the DOT-ALL modifier (the trailing s in the following pattern):
/^((?!hede).)*$/s
or use it inline:
/(?s)^((?!hede).)*$/
(where the /.../ are the regex delimiters, i.e., not part of the pattern)
If the DOT-ALL modifier is not available, you can mimic the same behavior with the character class [\s\S]:
/^((?!hede)[\s\S])*$/
Explanation
A string is just a list of n characters. Before, and after each character, there's an empty string. So a list of n characters will have n+1 empty strings. Consider the string "ABhedeCD":
┌──┬───┬──┬───┬──┬───┬──┬───┬──┬───┬──┬───┬──┬───┬──┬───┬──┐
S = │e1│ A │e2│ B │e3│ h │e4│ e │e5│ d │e6│ e │e7│ C │e8│ D │e9│
└──┴───┴──┴───┴──┴───┴──┴───┴──┴───┴──┴───┴──┴───┴──┴───┴──┘
index 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
where the e's are the empty strings. The regex (?!hede). looks ahead to see if there's no substring "hede" to be seen, and if that is the case (so something else is seen), then the . (dot) will match any character except a line break. Look-arounds are also called zero-width-assertions because they don't consume any characters. They only assert/validate something.
So, in my example, every empty string is first validated to see if there's no "hede" up ahead, before a character is consumed by the . (dot). The regex (?!hede). will do that only once, so it is wrapped in a group, and repeated zero or more times: ((?!hede).)*. Finally, the start- and end-of-input are anchored to make sure the entire input is consumed: ^((?!hede).)*$
As you can see, the input "ABhedeCD" will fail because on e3, the regex (?!hede) fails (there is "hede" up ahead!).

Note that the solution to does not start with “hede”:
^(?!hede).*$
is generally much more efficient than the solution to does not contain “hede”:
^((?!hede).)*$
The former checks for “hede” only at the input string’s first position, rather than at every position.

If you're just using it for grep, you can use grep -v hede to get all lines which do not contain hede.
ETA Oh, rereading the question, grep -v is probably what you meant by "tools options".

Answer:
^((?!hede).)*$
Explanation:
^the beginning of the string,
( group and capture to \1 (0 or more times (matching the most amount possible)),
(?! look ahead to see if there is not,
hede your string,
) end of look-ahead,
. any character except \n,
)* end of \1 (Note: because you are using a quantifier on this capture, only the LAST repetition of the captured pattern will be stored in \1)
$ before an optional \n, and the end of the string

The given answers are perfectly fine, just an academic point:
Regular Expressions in the meaning of theoretical computer sciences ARE NOT ABLE do it like this. For them it had to look something like this:
^([^h].*$)|(h([^e].*$|$))|(he([^h].*$|$))|(heh([^e].*$|$))|(hehe.+$)
This only does a FULL match. Doing it for sub-matches would even be more awkward.

If you want the regex test to only fail if the entire string matches, the following will work:
^(?!hede$).*
e.g. -- If you want to allow all values except "foo" (i.e. "foofoo", "barfoo", and "foobar" will pass, but "foo" will fail), use: ^(?!foo$).*
Of course, if you're checking for exact equality, a better general solution in this case is to check for string equality, i.e.
myStr !== 'foo'
You could even put the negation outside the test if you need any regex features (here, case insensitivity and range matching):
!/^[a-f]oo$/i.test(myStr)
The regex solution at the top of this answer may be helpful, however, in situations where a positive regex test is required (perhaps by an API).

FWIW, since regular languages (aka rational languages) are closed under complementation, it's always possible to find a regular expression (aka rational expression) that negates another expression. But not many tools implement this.
Vcsn supports this operator (which it denotes {c}, postfix).
You first define the type of your expressions: labels are letter (lal_char) to pick from a to z for instance (defining the alphabet when working with complementation is, of course, very important), and the "value" computed for each word is just a Boolean: true the word is accepted, false, rejected.
In Python:
In [5]: import vcsn
c = vcsn.context('lal_char(a-z), b')
c
Out[5]: {a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i,j,k,l,m,n,o,p,q,r,s,t,u,v,w,x,y,z} → 𝔹
then you enter your expression:
In [6]: e = c.expression('(hede){c}'); e
Out[6]: (hede)^c
convert this expression to an automaton:
In [7]: a = e.automaton(); a
finally, convert this automaton back to a simple expression.
In [8]: print(a.expression())
\e+h(\e+e(\e+d))+([^h]+h([^e]+e([^d]+d([^e]+e[^]))))[^]*
where + is usually denoted |, \e denotes the empty word, and [^] is usually written . (any character). So, with a bit of rewriting ()|h(ed?)?|([^h]|h([^e]|e([^d]|d([^e]|e.)))).*.
You can see this example here, and try Vcsn online there.

Here's a good explanation of why it's not easy to negate an arbitrary regex. I have to agree with the other answers, though: if this is anything other than a hypothetical question, then a regex is not the right choice here.

With negative lookahead, regular expression can match something not contains specific pattern. This is answered and explained by Bart Kiers. Great explanation!
However, with Bart Kiers' answer, the lookahead part will test 1 to 4 characters ahead while matching any single character. We can avoid this and let the lookahead part check out the whole text, ensure there is no 'hede', and then the normal part (.*) can eat the whole text all at one time.
Here is the improved regex:
/^(?!.*?hede).*$/
Note the (*?) lazy quantifier in the negative lookahead part is optional, you can use (*) greedy quantifier instead, depending on your data: if 'hede' does present and in the beginning half of the text, the lazy quantifier can be faster; otherwise, the greedy quantifier be faster. However if 'hede' does not present, both would be equal slow.
Here is the demo code.
For more information about lookahead, please check out the great article: Mastering Lookahead and Lookbehind.
Also, please check out RegexGen.js, a JavaScript Regular Expression Generator that helps to construct complex regular expressions. With RegexGen.js, you can construct the regex in a more readable way:
var _ = regexGen;
var regex = _(
_.startOfLine(),
_.anything().notContains( // match anything that not contains:
_.anything().lazy(), 'hede' // zero or more chars that followed by 'hede',
// i.e., anything contains 'hede'
),
_.endOfLine()
);

Benchmarks
I decided to evaluate some of the presented Options and compare their performance, as well as use some new Features.
Benchmarking on .NET Regex Engine: http://regexhero.net/tester/
Benchmark Text:
The first 7 lines should not match, since they contain the searched Expression, while the lower 7 lines should match!
Regex Hero is a real-time online Silverlight Regular Expression Tester.
XRegex Hero is a real-time online Silverlight Regular Expression Tester.
Regex HeroRegex HeroRegex HeroRegex HeroRegex Hero is a real-time online Silverlight Regular Expression Tester.
Regex Her Regex Her Regex Her Regex Her Regex Her Regex Her Regex Hero is a real-time online Silverlight Regular Expression Tester.
Regex Her is a real-time online Silverlight Regular Expression Tester.Regex Hero
egex Hero egex Hero egex Hero egex Hero egex Hero egex Hero Regex Hero is a real-time online Silverlight Regular Expression Tester.
RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRegex Hero is a real-time online Silverlight Regular Expression Tester.
Regex Her
egex Hero
egex Hero is a real-time online Silverlight Regular Expression Tester.
Regex Her is a real-time online Silverlight Regular Expression Tester.
Regex Her Regex Her Regex Her Regex Her Regex Her Regex Her is a real-time online Silverlight Regular Expression Tester.
Nobody is a real-time online Silverlight Regular Expression Tester.
Regex Her o egex Hero Regex Hero Reg ex Hero is a real-time online Silverlight Regular Expression Tester.
Results:
Results are Iterations per second as the median of 3 runs - Bigger Number = Better
01: ^((?!Regex Hero).)*$ 3.914 // Accepted Answer
02: ^(?:(?!Regex Hero).)*$ 5.034 // With Non-Capturing group
03: ^(?!.*?Regex Hero).* 7.356 // Lookahead at the beginning, if not found match everything
04: ^(?>[^R]+|R(?!egex Hero))*$ 6.137 // Lookahead only on the right first letter
05: ^(?>(?:.*?Regex Hero)?)^.*$ 7.426 // Match the word and check if you're still at linestart
06: ^(?(?=.*?Regex Hero)(?#fail)|.*)$ 7.371 // Logic Branch: Find Regex Hero? match nothing, else anything
P1: ^(?(?=.*?Regex Hero)(*FAIL)|(*ACCEPT)) ????? // Logic Branch in Perl - Quick FAIL
P2: .*?Regex Hero(*COMMIT)(*FAIL)|(*ACCEPT) ????? // Direct COMMIT & FAIL in Perl
Since .NET doesn't support action Verbs (*FAIL, etc.) I couldn't test the solutions P1 and P2.
Summary:
The overall most readable and performance-wise fastest solution seems to be 03 with a simple negative lookahead. This is also the fastest solution for JavaScript, since JS does not support the more advanced Regex Features for the other solutions.

Not regex, but I've found it logical and useful to use serial greps with pipe to eliminate noise.
eg. search an apache config file without all the comments-
grep -v '\#' /opt/lampp/etc/httpd.conf # this gives all the non-comment lines
and
grep -v '\#' /opt/lampp/etc/httpd.conf | grep -i dir
The logic of serial grep's is (not a comment) and (matches dir)

Since no one else has given a direct answer to the question that was asked, I'll do it.
The answer is that with POSIX grep, it's impossible to literally satisfy this request:
grep "<Regex for 'doesn't contain hede'>" input
The reason is that with no flags, POSIX grep is only required to work with Basic Regular Expressions (BREs), which are simply not powerful enough for accomplishing that task, because of lack of alternation in subexpressions. The only kind of alternation it supports involves providing multiple regular expressions separated by newlines, and that doesn't cover all regular languages, e.g. there's no finite collection of BREs that matches the same regular language as the extended regular expression (ERE) ^(ab|cd)*$.
However, GNU grep implements extensions that allow it. In particular, \| is the alternation operator in GNU's implementation of BREs. If your regular expression engine supports alternation, parentheses and the Kleene star, and is able to anchor to the beginning and end of the string, that's all you need for this approach. Note however that negative sets [^ ... ] are very convenient in addition to those, because otherwise, you need to replace them with an expression of the form (a|b|c| ... ) that lists every character that is not in the set, which is extremely tedious and overly long, even more so if the whole character set is Unicode.
Thanks to formal language theory, we get to see how such an expression looks like. With GNU grep, the answer would be something like:
grep "^\([^h]\|h\(h\|eh\|edh\)*\([^eh]\|e[^dh]\|ed[^eh]\)\)*\(\|h\(h\|eh\|edh\)*\(\|e\|ed\)\)$" input
(found with Grail and some further optimizations made by hand).
You can also use a tool that implements EREs, like egrep, to get rid of the backslashes, or equivalently, pass the -E flag to POSIX grep (although I was under the impression that the question required avoiding any flags to grep whatsoever):
egrep "^([^h]|h(h|eh|edh)*([^eh]|e[^dh]|ed[^eh]))*(|h(h|eh|edh)*(|e|ed))$" input
Here's a script to test it (note it generates a file testinput.txt in the current directory). Several of the expressions presented in other answers fail this test.
#!/bin/bash
REGEX="^\([^h]\|h\(h\|eh\|edh\)*\([^eh]\|e[^dh]\|ed[^eh]\)\)*\(\|h\(h\|eh\|edh\)*\(\|e\|ed\)\)$"
# First four lines as in OP's testcase.
cat > testinput.txt <<EOF
hoho
hihi
haha
hede
h
he
ah
head
ahead
ahed
aheda
ahede
hhede
hehede
hedhede
hehehehehehedehehe
hedecidedthat
EOF
diff -s -u <(grep -v hede testinput.txt) <(grep "$REGEX" testinput.txt)
In my system it prints:
Files /dev/fd/63 and /dev/fd/62 are identical
as expected.
For those interested in the details, the technique employed is to convert the regular expression that matches the word into a finite automaton, then invert the automaton by changing every acceptance state to non-acceptance and vice versa, and then converting the resulting FA back to a regular expression.
As everyone has noted, if your regular expression engine supports negative lookahead, the regular expression is much simpler. For example, with GNU grep:
grep -P '^((?!hede).)*$' input
However, this approach has the disadvantage that it requires a backtracking regular expression engine. This makes it unsuitable in installations that are using secure regular expression engines like RE2, which is one reason to prefer the generated approach in some circumstances.
Using Kendall Hopkins' excellent FormalTheory library, written in PHP, which provides a functionality similar to Grail, and a simplifier written by myself, I've been able to write an online generator of negative regular expressions given an input phrase (only alphanumeric and space characters currently supported, and the length is limited): http://www.formauri.es/personal/pgimeno/misc/non-match-regex/
For hede it outputs:
^([^h]|h(h|e(h|dh))*([^eh]|e([^dh]|d[^eh])))*(h(h|e(h|dh))*(ed?)?)?$
which is equivalent to the above.

with this, you avoid to test a lookahead on each positions:
/^(?:[^h]+|h++(?!ede))*+$/
equivalent to (for .net):
^(?>(?:[^h]+|h+(?!ede))*)$
Old answer:
/^(?>[^h]+|h+(?!ede))*$/

Aforementioned (?:(?!hede).)* is great because it can be anchored.
^(?:(?!hede).)*$ # A line without hede
foo(?:(?!hede).)*bar # foo followed by bar, without hede between them
But the following would suffice in this case:
^(?!.*hede) # A line without hede
This simplification is ready to have "AND" clauses added:
^(?!.*hede)(?=.*foo)(?=.*bar) # A line with foo and bar, but without hede
^(?!.*hede)(?=.*foo).*bar # Same

An, in my opinon, more readable variant of the top answer:
^(?!.*hede)
Basically, "match at the beginning of the line if and only if it does not have 'hede' in it" - so the requirement translated almost directly into regex.
Of course, it's possible to have multiple failure requirements:
^(?!.*(hede|hodo|hada))
Details: The ^ anchor ensures the regex engine doesn't retry the match at every location in the string, which would match every string.
The ^ anchor in the beginning is meant to represent the beginning of the line. The grep tool matches each line one at a time, in contexts where you're working with a multiline string, you can use the "m" flag:
/^(?!.*hede)/m # JavaScript syntax
or
(?m)^(?!.*hede) # Inline flag

Here's how I'd do it:
^[^h]*(h(?!ede)[^h]*)*$
Accurate and more efficient than the other answers. It implements Friedl's "unrolling-the-loop" efficiency technique and requires much less backtracking.

Another option is that to add a positive look-ahead and check if hede is anywhere in the input line, then we would negate that, with an expression similar to:
^(?!(?=.*\bhede\b)).*$
with word boundaries.
The expression is explained on the top right panel of regex101.com, if you wish to explore/simplify/modify it, and in this link, you can watch how it would match against some sample inputs, if you like.
RegEx Circuit
jex.im visualizes regular expressions:

If you want to match a character to negate a word similar to negate character class:
For example, a string:
<?
$str="aaa bbb4 aaa bbb7";
?>
Do not use:
<?
preg_match('/aaa[^bbb]+?bbb7/s', $str, $matches);
?>
Use:
<?
preg_match('/aaa(?:(?!bbb).)+?bbb7/s', $str, $matches);
?>
Notice "(?!bbb)." is neither lookbehind nor lookahead, it's lookcurrent, for example:
"(?=abc)abcde", "(?!abc)abcde"

The OP did not specify or Tag the post to indicate the context (programming language, editor, tool) the Regex will be used within.
For me, I sometimes need to do this while editing a file using Textpad.
Textpad supports some Regex, but does not support lookahead or lookbehind, so it takes a few steps.
If I am looking to retain all lines that Do NOT contain the string hede, I would do it like this:
1. Search/replace the entire file to add a unique "Tag" to the beginning of each line containing any text.
Search string:^(.)
Replace string:<##-unique-##>\1
Replace-all
2. Delete all lines that contain the string hede (replacement string is empty):
Search string:<##-unique-##>.*hede.*\n
Replace string:<nothing>
Replace-all
3. At this point, all remaining lines Do NOT contain the string hede. Remove the unique "Tag" from all lines (replacement string is empty):
Search string:<##-unique-##>
Replace string:<nothing>
Replace-all
Now you have the original text with all lines containing the string hede removed.
If I am looking to Do Something Else to only lines that Do NOT contain the string hede, I would do it like this:
1. Search/replace the entire file to add a unique "Tag" to the beginning of each line containing any text.
Search string:^(.)
Replace string:<##-unique-##>\1
Replace-all
2. For all lines that contain the string hede, remove the unique "Tag":
Search string:<##-unique-##>(.*hede)
Replace string:\1
Replace-all
3. At this point, all lines that begin with the unique "Tag", Do NOT contain the string hede. I can now do my Something Else to only those lines.
4. When I am done, I remove the unique "Tag" from all lines (replacement string is empty):
Search string:<##-unique-##>
Replace string:<nothing>
Replace-all

Since the introduction of ruby-2.4.1, we can use the new Absent Operator in Ruby’s Regular Expressions
from the official doc
(?~abc) matches: "", "ab", "aab", "cccc", etc.
It doesn't match: "abc", "aabc", "ccccabc", etc.
Thus, in your case ^(?~hede)$ does the job for you
2.4.1 :016 > ["hoho", "hihi", "haha", "hede"].select{|s| /^(?~hede)$/.match(s)}
=> ["hoho", "hihi", "haha"]

Through PCRE verb (*SKIP)(*F)
^hede$(*SKIP)(*F)|^.*$
This would completely skips the line which contains the exact string hede and matches all the remaining lines.
DEMO
Execution of the parts:
Let us consider the above regex by splitting it into two parts.
Part before the | symbol. Part shouldn't be matched.
^hede$(*SKIP)(*F)
Part after the | symbol. Part should be matched.
^.*$
PART 1
Regex engine will start its execution from the first part.
^hede$(*SKIP)(*F)
Explanation:
^ Asserts that we are at the start.
hede Matches the string hede
$ Asserts that we are at the line end.
So the line which contains the string hede would be matched. Once the regex engine sees the following (*SKIP)(*F) (Note: You could write (*F) as (*FAIL)) verb, it skips and make the match to fail. | called alteration or logical OR operator added next to the PCRE verb which inturn matches all the boundaries exists between each and every character on all the lines except the line contains the exact string hede. See the demo here. That is, it tries to match the characters from the remaining string. Now the regex in the second part would be executed.
PART 2
^.*$
Explanation:
^ Asserts that we are at the start. ie, it matches all the line starts except the one in the hede line. See the demo here.
.* In the Multiline mode, . would match any character except newline or carriage return characters. And * would repeat the previous character zero or more times. So .* would match the whole line. See the demo here.
Hey why you added .* instead of .+ ?
Because .* would match a blank line but .+ won't match a blank. We want to match all the lines except hede , there may be a possibility of blank lines also in the input . so you must use .* instead of .+ . .+ would repeat the previous character one or more times. See .* matches a blank line here.
$ End of the line anchor is not necessary here.

The TXR Language supports regex negation.
$ txr -c '#(repeat)
#{nothede /~hede/}
#(do (put-line nothede))
#(end)' Input
A more complicated example: match all lines that start with a and end with z, but do not contain the substring hede:
$ txr -c '#(repeat)
#{nothede /a.*z&~.*hede.*/}
#(do (put-line nothede))
#(end)' -
az <- echoed
az
abcz <- echoed
abcz
abhederz <- not echoed; contains hede
ahedez <- not echoed; contains hede
ace <- not echoed; does not end in z
ahedz <- echoed
ahedz
Regex negation is not particularly useful on its own but when you also have intersection, things get interesting, since you have a full set of boolean set operations: you can express "the set which matches this, except for things which match that".

It may be more maintainable to two regexes in your code, one to do the first match, and then if it matches run the second regex to check for outlier cases you wish to block for example ^.*(hede).* then have appropriate logic in your code.
OK, I admit this is not really an answer to the posted question posted and it may also use slightly more processing than a single regex. But for developers who came here looking for a fast emergency fix for an outlier case then this solution should not be overlooked.

The below function will help you get your desired output
<?PHP
function removePrepositions($text){
$propositions=array('/\bfor\b/i','/\bthe\b/i');
if( count($propositions) > 0 ) {
foreach($propositions as $exceptionPhrase) {
$text = preg_replace($exceptionPhrase, '', trim($text));
}
$retval = trim($text);
}
return $retval;
}
?>

I wanted to add another example for if you are trying to match an entire line that contains string X, but does not also contain string Y.
For example, let's say we want to check if our URL / string contains "tasty-treats", so long as it does not also contain "chocolate" anywhere.
This regex pattern would work (works in JavaScript too)
^(?=.*?tasty-treats)((?!chocolate).)*$
(global, multiline flags in example)
Interactive Example: https://regexr.com/53gv4
Matches
(These urls contain "tasty-treats" and also do not contain "chocolate")
example.com/tasty-treats/strawberry-ice-cream
example.com/desserts/tasty-treats/banana-pudding
example.com/tasty-treats-overview
Does Not Match
(These urls contain "chocolate" somewhere - so they won't match even though they contain "tasty-treats")
example.com/tasty-treats/chocolate-cake
example.com/home-cooking/oven-roasted-chicken
example.com/tasty-treats/banana-chocolate-fudge
example.com/desserts/chocolate/tasty-treats
example.com/chocolate/tasty-treats/desserts

As long as you are dealing with lines, simply mark the negative matches and target the rest.
In fact, I use this trick with sed because ^((?!hede).)*$ looks not supported by it.
For the desired output
Mark the negative match: (e.g. lines with hede), using a character not included in the whole text at all. An emoji could probably be a good choice for this purpose.
s/(.*hede)/🔒\1/g
Target the rest (the unmarked strings: e.g. lines without hede). Suppose you want to keep only the target and delete the rest (as you want):
s/^🔒.*//g
For a better understanding
Suppose you want to delete the target:
Mark the negative match: (e.g. lines with hede), using a character not included in the whole text at all. An emoji could probably be a good choice for this purpose.
s/(.*hede)/🔒\1/g
Target the rest (the unmarked strings: e.g. lines without hede). Suppose you want to delete the target:
s/^[^🔒].*//g
Remove the mark:
s/🔒//g

^((?!hede).)*$ is an elegant solution, except since it consumes characters you won't be able to combine it with other criteria. For instance, say you wanted to check for the non-presence of "hede" and the presence of "haha." This solution would work because it won't consume characters:
^(?!.*\bhede\b)(?=.*\bhaha\b)

How to use PCRE's backtracking control verbs to match a line not containing a word
Here's a method that I haven't seen used before:
/.*hede(*COMMIT)^|/
How it works
First, it tries to find "hede" somewhere in the line. If successful, at this point, (*COMMIT) tells the engine to, not only not backtrack in the event of a failure, but also not to attempt any further matching in that case. Then, we try to match something that cannot possibly match (in this case, ^).
If a line does not contain "hede" then the second alternative, an empty subpattern, successfully matches the subject string.
This method is no more efficient than a negative lookahead, but I figured I'd just throw it on here in case someone finds it nifty and finds a use for it for other, more interesting applications.

Simplest thing that I could find would be
[^(hede)]
Tested at https://regex101.com/
You can also add unit-test cases on that site

A simpler solution is to use the not operator !
Your if statement will need to match "contains" and not match "excludes".
var contains = /abc/;
var excludes =/hede/;
if(string.match(contains) && !(string.match(excludes))){ //proceed...
I believe the designers of RegEx anticipated the use of not operators.

Match everything expect a specific string

I am using Python 2.7 and have a question with regards to regular expressions. My string would be something like this...
"SecurityGroup:Pub HDP SG"
"SecurityGroup:Group-Name"
"SecurityGroup:TestName"
My regular expression looks something like below
[^S^e^c^r^i^t^y^G^r^o^u^p^:].*
The above seems to work but I have the feeling it is not very efficient and also if the string has the word "group" in it, that will fail as well...
What I am looking for is the output should find anything after the colon (:). I also thought I can do something like using group 2 as my match... but the problem with that is, if there are spaces in the name then I won't be able to get the correct name.
(SecurityGroup):(\w{1,})

Why not just do
security_string.split(':')[1]
To grab the second part of the String after the colon?

You could use lookbehind:
pattern = re.compile(r"(?<=SecurityGroup:)(.*)")
matches = re.findall(pattern, your_string)
Breaking it down:
(?<= # positive lookbehind. Matches things preceded by the following group
SecurityGroup: # pattern you want your matches preceded by
) # end positive lookbehind
( # start matching group
.* # any number of characters
) # end matching group
When tested on the string "something something SecurityGroup:stuff and stuff" it returns matches = ['stuff and stuff'].
Edit:
As mentioned in a comment, pattern = re.compile(r"SecurityGroup:(.*)") accomplishes the same thing. In this case you are matching the string "SecurityGroup:" followed by anything, but only returning the stuff that follows. This is probably more clear than my original example using lookbehind.

Maybe this:
([^:"]+[^\s](?="))
Regex live here.

Nongreedy Regex with Repetition

I am using the following regex:
((FFD8FF).+?((FFD9)(?:(?!FFD8).)*))
I need to do the following with regex:
Find FFD8FF
Find the last FFD9that comes before the next FFD8FF
Stop at the last FFD9 and not include any content after
What I've got does what I need except it finds and keeps any junk after the last FFD9. How can I get it to jump back to the last FFD9?
Here's the string that I'm searching with this expression:
asdfasdfasasdaFFD8FFasdfalsjdflajsdfljasdfasdfasdfasdfFFD9asdflasdflasdfFFD9asdfasdfFFD8FFasdfalsjdflajsdfljasdfasdfasdfasdfFFD9
Thanks a lot for your help.
More info:
I have a list of start and end values I need to search for (FFD8FF and FFD9 are just one pair). They are in a list. Because of this, I'm using r.compile to dynamically create the expression in a for loop that goes through the different values. I have the following code, but it is returning 0 matches:
regExp = re.compile("FD8FF(?:[^F]|F(?!FD8FF))*FFD9")
matchObj = re.findall(regExp, contents)
In the above code, I'm just trying to use the plain regex without even getting the values from the list (that would look like this):
regExp = re.compile(typeItem[0] + "(?:[^" + typeItem[0][0] + "]|" + typeItem[0][0] + "(?!" + typeItem[0] + "))*" + typeItem[1])
Any other ideas why there aren't any matches?
EDIT:
I figured out that I forgot to include flags. Flags are now included to ignore case and multiline. I now have
regExp = re.compile(typeItem[0] + "(?:[^" + typeItem[0][0] + "]|" + typeItem[0][0] + "(?!" + typeItem[0] + "))*" + typeItem[1],re.M|re.I)
Although now I'm getting a memory error. Is there any way to make this more efficient? I am using the expression to search hundreds of thousands of lines (using the findall expression above)

an easy way is to use this:
FFD8FF(?:[^F]|F(?!FD8FF))*FFD9
explanation:
FFD8FF
(?: # this group describe the allowed content between the "anchors"
[^F] # all that is not a "F"
| # OR
F(?!FD8FF) # a "F" not followed by "FD8FF"
)* # repeat (greedy)
FFD9 # until the last FFD9 before FFD8FF
Even if a greedy quantifier is used for the group, the regex engine will backtrack to find the last "FFD9" substring.
If you want to ensure that FFD8FF is present, you can add a lookahead at the end of the pattern:
FFD8FF(?:[^F]|F(?!FD8FF))*FFD9(?=.*?FFD8FF)
You can optimize this pattern by emulating an atomic group that will limit the backtracking and allows to use quantifier inside the group:
FFD8FF(?:(?=([^F]+|F(?!FD8FF)))\1)*FFD9
This trick uses the fact that the content of a lookahead is naturally atomic once the closing parenthesis reached. So if you enclose a group inside a lookahead with a capture group inside, you only have to put the backreference after to obtain an "atom" (an indivisable substring).
When the regex engine need to backtrack, it will backtrack atom by atom instead of character by character that is much faster.
If you need a capture group before this trick, don't forget to update the number of the backreference, examples:
(FFD8FF(?:(?=([^F]+|F(?!FD8FF)))\2)*FFD9)
(FFD8FF((?:(?=([^F]+|F(?!FD8FF)))\3)*)FFD9)
working example:
>>> import re
>>> yourstr = 'asdfasdfasasdaFFD8FFasdfalsjdflajsdfljasdfasdfasdfasdfFFD9asdflasdflasdfFFD9asdfasdfFFD8FFasdfalsjdflajsdfljasdfasdfasdfasdfFFD9'
>>> p = re.compile(r'(FFD8FF((?:(?=([^F]+|F(?!FD8FF)))\3)*)FFD9)(?=.*?FFD8FF)')
>>> re.findall(p, yourstr)
[('FFD8FFasdfalsjdflajsdfljasdfasdfasdfasdfFFD9asdflasdflasdfFFD9', 'asdfalsjdflajsdfljasdfasdfasdfasdfFFD9asdflasdflasdf', 'D9asdflasdflasdf')]
variant:
(FFD8FF((?:(?=(F(?!FD8FF)[^F]*|[^F]+))\3)*)FFD9)(?=.*?FFD8FF)

Since you are not restricted to one regexp by your application's architecture, break it down into steps:
You want to break up the text in units that begin at each FFD8FF. Just use non-greedy search that ends just before the next FFD8FF: re.findall(r"FFD8FF.*?(?=FFD8FF)", contents). (This uses look-ahead, which is in my opinion overused; but it lets you save the final FFD8FF for the next string.)
You then want to trim each such string so that it ends at the last FFD9. Easiest way to do this is with greedy search: re.search(r"^.*FFD9", part). Like this:
for part in re.findall(r"FFD8FF.*?(?=FFD8FF)", contents):
print(re.search(r"^.*FFD9", part).group(0))
Simple, maintainable and efficient.

This is how I would do it:
>>> re.search(r'((FFD8FF).+?(FFD9))(?:((?!FFD9).)+FFD8FF)', s).groups()
('FFD8FFasdfalsjdflajsdfljasdfasdfasdfasdfFFD9asdflasdflasdfFFD9',
'FFD8FF',
'FFD9',
'f')
The second part just searches for a string not containing FFD9 that ends with FFD8FF.
It includes your search components, so you can still substitute them in your regex. However for something rather complicated like this I would avoid regex.
btw, thanks for posting a regex question that is high-quality and not the usual spam.

Python regex: how to match anything up to a specific string and avoid backtraking when failin

I'm trying to craft a regex able to match anything up to a specific pattern. The regex then will continue looking for other patterns until the end of the string, but in some cases the pattern will not be present and the match will fail. Right now I'm stuck at:
.*?PATTERN
The problem is that, in cases where the string is not present, this takes too much time due to backtraking. In order to shorten this, I tried mimicking atomic grouping using positive lookahead as explained in this thread (btw, I'm using re module in python-2.7):
Do Python regular expressions have an equivalent to Ruby's atomic grouping?
So I wrote:
(?=(?P<aux1>.*?))(?P=aux1)PATTERN
Of course, this is faster than the previous version when STRING is not present but trouble is, it doesn't match STRING anymore as the . matches everyhing to the end of the string and the previous states are discarded after the lookahead.
So the question is, is there a way to do a match like .*?STRING and alse be able to fail faster when the match is not present?

You could try using split
If the results are of length 1 you got no match. If you get two or more you know that the first one is the first match. If you limit the split to size one you'll short-circuit the later matching:
"HI THERE THEO".split("TH", 1) # ['HI ', 'ERE THEO']
The first element of the results is up to the match.

One-Regex Solution
^(?=(?P<aux1>(?:[^P]|P(?!ATTERN))*))(?P=aux1)PATTERN
Explanation
You wanted to use the atomic grouping like this: (?>.*?)PATTERN, right? This won't work. Problem is, you can't use lazy quantifiers at the end of an atomic grouping: the definition of the AG is that once you're outside of it, the regex won't backtrack inside.
So the regex engine will match the .*?, because of the laziness it will step outside of the group to check if the next character is a P, and if it's not it won't be able to backtrack inside the group to match that next character inside the .*.
What's usually used in Perl are structures like this: (?>(?:[^P]|P(?!ATTERN))*)PATTERN. That way, the equivalent of .* (here (?:[^P]|P(?!ATTERN))) won't "eat up" the wanted pattern.
This pattern is easier to read in my opinion with possessive quantifiers, which are made just for these occasions: (?:[^P]|P(?!ATTERN))*+PATTERN.
Translated with your workaround, this would lead to the above regex (added ^ since you should anchor the regex, either to the start of the string or to another regex).

The Python documentation includes a brief outline of the differences between the re.search() and re.match() functions http://docs.python.org/2/library/re.html#search-vs-match. In particular, the following quote is relevant:
Sometimes you’ll be tempted to keep using re.match(), and just add .* to the front of your RE. Resist this temptation and use re.search() instead. The regular expression compiler does some analysis of REs in order to speed up the process of looking for a match. One such analysis figures out what the first character of a match must be; for example, a pattern starting with Crow must match starting with a 'C'. The analysis lets the engine quickly scan through the string looking for the starting character, only trying the full match if a 'C' is found.
Adding .* defeats this optimization, requiring scanning to the end of the string and then backtracking to find a match for the rest of the RE. Use re.search() instead.
In your case, it would be preferable to define your pattern simply as:
pattern = re.compile("PATTERN")
And then call pattern.search(...), which will not backtrack when the pattern is not found.