github-starred/semver
2
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/semver/semver.git synced 2026-07-11 03:53:53 -05:00
Code Issues 1.0k Packages Projects Releases 4 Wiki Activity

[GH-ISSUE #981] modern/extended POSIX-compliant SemVer RegEx (for bash) #5723

New Issue
Open
opened 2026-06-15 12:15:28 -05:00 by GiteaMirror · 16 comments
GiteaMirror commented 2026-06-15 12:15:28 -05:00
Owner
Copy Link

Originally created by @har7an on GitHub (Oct 14, 2023).
Original GitHub issue: https://github.com/semver/semver/issues/981

Hello,

today I was writing an application for a bit of CI-infrastructure of mine that needs to handle semver numbers from applications. Since I prefer to write my CI code in plain bash, I came up with a regex that one can perform in bash to match semver. This differs slightly from the example for numbered capture groups since POSIX regex (which is what bash uses), as far as I know, has no concept of non-matching capture groups. Here's what I came up with:

# Regex for a semver digit
D='0|[1-9][0-9]*'
# Regex for a semver pre-release word
PW='[0-9]*[a-zA-Z-][0-9a-zA-Z-]*'
# Regex for a semver build-metadata word
MW='[0-9a-zA-Z-]+'

if [[ "$INPUT" =~ ^($D)\.($D)\.($D)(-(($D|$PW)(\.($D|$PW))*))?(\+($MW(\.$MW)*))?$ ]]; then
    MAJOR="${BASH_REMATCH[1]}"
    MINOR="${BASH_REMATCH[2]:-""}"
    PATCH="${BASH_REMATCH[3]:-""}"
    PRE_RELEASE="${BASH_REMATCH[5]:-""}"
    BUILD_METADATA="${BASH_REMATCH[10]:-""}"
fi

The individual parts are captured as follows:

  • Capture group 1: Major
  • Capture group 2: Minor
  • Capture group 3: Patch
  • Capture group 5: Prerelease
  • Capture group 10: Build metadata

Here is the fully-expanded regex pattern:

^(0|[1-9][0-9]*)\.(0|[1-9][0-9]*)\.(0|[1-9][0-9]*)(-((0|[1-9][0-9]*|[0-9]*[a-zA-Z-][0-9a-zA-Z-]*)(\.(0|[1-9][0-9]*|[0-9]*[a-zA-Z-][0-9a-zA-Z-]*))*))?(\+([0-9a-zA-Z-]+(\.[0-9a-zA-Z-]+)*))?$

Maybe this will save someone else an hour of playing with regular expressions. :)

Originally created by @har7an on GitHub (Oct 14, 2023). Original GitHub issue: https://github.com/semver/semver/issues/981 Hello, today I was writing an application for a bit of CI-infrastructure of mine that needs to handle semver numbers from applications. Since I prefer to write my CI code in plain bash, I came up with a regex that one can perform in bash to match semver. This differs slightly from the [example for numbered capture groups][1] since POSIX regex (which is what bash uses), as far as I know, has no concept of non-matching capture groups. Here's what I came up with: ```bash # Regex for a semver digit D='0|[1-9][0-9]*' # Regex for a semver pre-release word PW='[0-9]*[a-zA-Z-][0-9a-zA-Z-]*' # Regex for a semver build-metadata word MW='[0-9a-zA-Z-]+' if [[ "$INPUT" =~ ^($D)\.($D)\.($D)(-(($D|$PW)(\.($D|$PW))*))?(\+($MW(\.$MW)*))?$ ]]; then MAJOR="${BASH_REMATCH[1]}" MINOR="${BASH_REMATCH[2]:-""}" PATCH="${BASH_REMATCH[3]:-""}" PRE_RELEASE="${BASH_REMATCH[5]:-""}" BUILD_METADATA="${BASH_REMATCH[10]:-""}" fi ``` The individual parts are captured as follows: - Capture group 1: Major - Capture group 2: Minor - Capture group 3: Patch - Capture group 5: Prerelease - Capture group 10: Build metadata Here is the fully-expanded regex pattern: ``` ^(0|[1-9][0-9]*)\.(0|[1-9][0-9]*)\.(0|[1-9][0-9]*)(-((0|[1-9][0-9]*|[0-9]*[a-zA-Z-][0-9a-zA-Z-]*)(\.(0|[1-9][0-9]*|[0-9]*[a-zA-Z-][0-9a-zA-Z-]*))*))?(\+([0-9a-zA-Z-]+(\.[0-9a-zA-Z-]+)*))?$ ``` Maybe this will save someone else an hour of playing with regular expressions. :) [1]: https://semver.org/#is-there-a-suggested-regular-expression-regex-to-check-a-semver-string
GiteaMirror commented 2026-06-15 12:15:31 -05:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@har7an commented on GitHub (Oct 14, 2023):

I see the website code is hosted in this repo as well. If there's interest, I'll happily turn this into a PR to add a third regular expression at the bottom of the page.

<!-- gh-comment-id:1762799997 --> @har7an commented on GitHub (Oct 14, 2023): I see the website code is hosted in this repo as well. If there's interest, I'll happily turn this into a PR to add a third regular expression at the bottom of the page.
GiteaMirror commented 2026-06-15 12:15:32 -05:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jwdonahue commented on GitHub (Oct 17, 2023):

You will find a test string here: https://regex101.com/r/vkijKf/1/

How does your regex perform against the valid/invalid data?

<!-- gh-comment-id:1766792635 --> @jwdonahue commented on GitHub (Oct 17, 2023): You will find a test string here: https://regex101.com/r/vkijKf/1/ How does your regex perform against the valid/invalid data?
GiteaMirror commented 2026-06-15 12:15:32 -05:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@har7an commented on GitHub (Oct 18, 2023):

Oh right, sorry I forgot to mention this. It passes the tests, here's a sample code to run for anyone interested:

#!/usr/bin/env bash

# Regex for a semver digit
D='0|[1-9][0-9]*'
# Regex for a semver pre-release word
PW='[0-9]*[a-zA-Z-][0-9a-zA-Z-]*'
# Regex for a semver build-metadata word
MW='[0-9a-zA-Z-]+'

declare -a MUST_MATCH=("0.0.4" "1.2.3" "10.20.30" "1.1.2-prerelease+meta"
    "1.1.2+meta" "1.1.2+meta-valid" "1.0.0-alpha" "1.0.0-beta" "1.0.0-alpha.beta"
    "1.0.0-alpha.beta.1" "1.0.0-alpha.1" "1.0.0-alpha0.valid" "1.0.0-alpha.0valid"
    "1.0.0-alpha-a.b-c-somethinglong+build.1-aef.1-its-okay" "1.0.0-rc.1+build.1"
    "2.0.0-rc.1+build.123" "1.2.3-beta" "10.2.3-DEV-SNAPSHOT" "1.2.3-SNAPSHOT-123"
    "1.0.0" "2.0.0" "1.1.7" "2.0.0+build.1848" "2.0.1-alpha.1227" "1.0.0-alpha+beta"
    "1.2.3----RC-SNAPSHOT.12.9.1--.12+788" "1.2.3----R-S.12.9.1--.12+meta"
    "1.2.3----RC-SNAPSHOT.12.9.1--.12" "1.0.0+0.build.1-rc.10000aaa-kk-0.1"
    "99999999999999999999999.999999999999999999.99999999999999999"
    "1.0.0-0A.is.legal")
declare -a MUST_NOT_MATCH=("1" "1.2" "1.2.3-0123" "1.2.3-0123.0123" "1.1.2+.123"
    "+invalid" "-invalid" "-invalid+invalid" "-invalid.01" "alpha" "alpha.beta"
    "alpha.beta.1" "alpha.1" "alpha+beta" "alpha_beta" "alpha." "alpha.." "beta"
    "1.0.0-alpha_beta" "-alpha." "1.0.0-alpha.." "1.0.0-alpha..1" "1.0.0-alpha...1"
    "1.0.0-alpha....1" "1.0.0-alpha.....1" "1.0.0-alpha......1" "1.0.0-alpha.......1"
    "01.1.1" "1.01.1" "1.1.01" "1.2.3.DEV" "1.2-SNAPSHOT"
    "1.2.31.2.3----RC-SNAPSHOT.12.09.1--..12+788" "1.2-RC-SNAPSHOT" "-1.0.3-gamma+b7718"
    "+justmeta" "9.8.7+meta+meta" "9.8.7-whatever+meta+meta"
    "99999999999999999999999.999999999999999999.99999999999999999----RC-SNAPSHOT.12.09.1--------------------------------..12")

function _fatal {
    echo -e "\e[31mFATAL\e[0m $@"
    exit 1
}

function _ok {
    echo -e "\e[32m   OK\e[0m $@"
}

echo ">> Testing valid version numbers <<"
for var in "${MUST_MATCH[@]}"; do
    if [[ "$var" =~ ^($D)\.($D)\.($D)(-(($D|$PW)(\.($D|$PW))*))?(\+($MW(\.$MW)*))?$ ]]; then
        MAJOR="${BASH_REMATCH[1]}"
        MINOR="${BASH_REMATCH[2]:-""}"
        PATCH="${BASH_REMATCH[3]:-""}"
        PRE_RELEASE="${BASH_REMATCH[5]:-""}"
        BUILD_METADATA="${BASH_REMATCH[10]:-""}"

        _ok "$var -> ($MAJOR) ($MINOR) ($PATCH) ($PRE_RELEASE) ($BUILD_METADATA)"
    else
        _fatal "regex didn't match '$var'"
    fi
done

echo ""
echo ">> Testing invalid version numbers <<"
for var in "${MUST_NOT_MATCH[@]}"; do
    if [[ "$var" =~ ^($D)\.($D)\.($D)(-(($D|$PW)(\.($D|$PW))*))?(\+($MW(\.$MW)*))?$ ]]; then
        _fatal "regex matched '$var'"
    else
        _ok "'$var' recognized as invalid"
    fi
done

echo ""
_ok "All tests passed"
exit 0

and here's the output:

>> Testing valid version numbers <<
   OK 0.0.4 -> (0) (0) (4) () ()
   OK 1.2.3 -> (1) (2) (3) () ()
   OK 10.20.30 -> (10) (20) (30) () ()
   OK 1.1.2-prerelease+meta -> (1) (1) (2) (prerelease) (meta)
   OK 1.1.2+meta -> (1) (1) (2) () (meta)
   OK 1.1.2+meta-valid -> (1) (1) (2) () (meta-valid)
   OK 1.0.0-alpha -> (1) (0) (0) (alpha) ()
   OK 1.0.0-beta -> (1) (0) (0) (beta) ()
   OK 1.0.0-alpha.beta -> (1) (0) (0) (alpha.beta) ()
   OK 1.0.0-alpha.beta.1 -> (1) (0) (0) (alpha.beta.1) ()
   OK 1.0.0-alpha.1 -> (1) (0) (0) (alpha.1) ()
   OK 1.0.0-alpha0.valid -> (1) (0) (0) (alpha0.valid) ()
   OK 1.0.0-alpha.0valid -> (1) (0) (0) (alpha.0valid) ()
   OK 1.0.0-alpha-a.b-c-somethinglong+build.1-aef.1-its-okay -> (1) (0) (0) (alpha-a.b-c-somethinglong) (build.1-aef.1-its-okay)
   OK 1.0.0-rc.1+build.1 -> (1) (0) (0) (rc.1) (build.1)
   OK 2.0.0-rc.1+build.123 -> (2) (0) (0) (rc.1) (build.123)
   OK 1.2.3-beta -> (1) (2) (3) (beta) ()
   OK 10.2.3-DEV-SNAPSHOT -> (10) (2) (3) (DEV-SNAPSHOT) ()
   OK 1.2.3-SNAPSHOT-123 -> (1) (2) (3) (SNAPSHOT-123) ()
   OK 1.0.0 -> (1) (0) (0) () ()
   OK 2.0.0 -> (2) (0) (0) () ()
   OK 1.1.7 -> (1) (1) (7) () ()
   OK 2.0.0+build.1848 -> (2) (0) (0) () (build.1848)
   OK 2.0.1-alpha.1227 -> (2) (0) (1) (alpha.1227) ()
   OK 1.0.0-alpha+beta -> (1) (0) (0) (alpha) (beta)
   OK 1.2.3----RC-SNAPSHOT.12.9.1--.12+788 -> (1) (2) (3) (---RC-SNAPSHOT.12.9.1--.12) (788)
   OK 1.2.3----R-S.12.9.1--.12+meta -> (1) (2) (3) (---R-S.12.9.1--.12) (meta)
   OK 1.2.3----RC-SNAPSHOT.12.9.1--.12 -> (1) (2) (3) (---RC-SNAPSHOT.12.9.1--.12) ()
   OK 1.0.0+0.build.1-rc.10000aaa-kk-0.1 -> (1) (0) (0) () (0.build.1-rc.10000aaa-kk-0.1)
   OK 99999999999999999999999.999999999999999999.99999999999999999 -> (99999999999999999999999) (999999999999999999) (99999999999999999) () ()
   OK 1.0.0-0A.is.legal -> (1) (0) (0) (0A.is.legal) ()

>> Testing invalid version numbers <<
   OK '1' recognized as invalid
   OK '1.2' recognized as invalid
   OK '1.2.3-0123' recognized as invalid
   OK '1.2.3-0123.0123' recognized as invalid
   OK '1.1.2+.123' recognized as invalid
   OK '+invalid' recognized as invalid
   OK '-invalid' recognized as invalid
   OK '-invalid+invalid' recognized as invalid
   OK '-invalid.01' recognized as invalid
   OK 'alpha' recognized as invalid
   OK 'alpha.beta' recognized as invalid
   OK 'alpha.beta.1' recognized as invalid
   OK 'alpha.1' recognized as invalid
   OK 'alpha+beta' recognized as invalid
   OK 'alpha_beta' recognized as invalid
   OK 'alpha.' recognized as invalid
   OK 'alpha..' recognized as invalid
   OK 'beta' recognized as invalid
   OK '1.0.0-alpha_beta' recognized as invalid
   OK '-alpha.' recognized as invalid
   OK '1.0.0-alpha..' recognized as invalid
   OK '1.0.0-alpha..1' recognized as invalid
   OK '1.0.0-alpha...1' recognized as invalid
   OK '1.0.0-alpha....1' recognized as invalid
   OK '1.0.0-alpha.....1' recognized as invalid
   OK '1.0.0-alpha......1' recognized as invalid
   OK '1.0.0-alpha.......1' recognized as invalid
   OK '01.1.1' recognized as invalid
   OK '1.01.1' recognized as invalid
   OK '1.1.01' recognized as invalid
   OK '1.2.3.DEV' recognized as invalid
   OK '1.2-SNAPSHOT' recognized as invalid
   OK '1.2.31.2.3----RC-SNAPSHOT.12.09.1--..12+788' recognized as invalid
   OK '1.2-RC-SNAPSHOT' recognized as invalid
   OK '-1.0.3-gamma+b7718' recognized as invalid
   OK '+justmeta' recognized as invalid
   OK '9.8.7+meta+meta' recognized as invalid
   OK '9.8.7-whatever+meta+meta' recognized as invalid
   OK '99999999999999999999999.999999999999999999.99999999999999999----RC-SNAPSHOT.12.09.1--------------------------------..12' recognized as invalid

   OK All tests passed
<!-- gh-comment-id:1767656024 --> @har7an commented on GitHub (Oct 18, 2023): Oh right, sorry I forgot to mention this. It passes the tests, here's a sample code to run for anyone interested: ```bash #!/usr/bin/env bash # Regex for a semver digit D='0|[1-9][0-9]*' # Regex for a semver pre-release word PW='[0-9]*[a-zA-Z-][0-9a-zA-Z-]*' # Regex for a semver build-metadata word MW='[0-9a-zA-Z-]+' declare -a MUST_MATCH=("0.0.4" "1.2.3" "10.20.30" "1.1.2-prerelease+meta" "1.1.2+meta" "1.1.2+meta-valid" "1.0.0-alpha" "1.0.0-beta" "1.0.0-alpha.beta" "1.0.0-alpha.beta.1" "1.0.0-alpha.1" "1.0.0-alpha0.valid" "1.0.0-alpha.0valid" "1.0.0-alpha-a.b-c-somethinglong+build.1-aef.1-its-okay" "1.0.0-rc.1+build.1" "2.0.0-rc.1+build.123" "1.2.3-beta" "10.2.3-DEV-SNAPSHOT" "1.2.3-SNAPSHOT-123" "1.0.0" "2.0.0" "1.1.7" "2.0.0+build.1848" "2.0.1-alpha.1227" "1.0.0-alpha+beta" "1.2.3----RC-SNAPSHOT.12.9.1--.12+788" "1.2.3----R-S.12.9.1--.12+meta" "1.2.3----RC-SNAPSHOT.12.9.1--.12" "1.0.0+0.build.1-rc.10000aaa-kk-0.1" "99999999999999999999999.999999999999999999.99999999999999999" "1.0.0-0A.is.legal") declare -a MUST_NOT_MATCH=("1" "1.2" "1.2.3-0123" "1.2.3-0123.0123" "1.1.2+.123" "+invalid" "-invalid" "-invalid+invalid" "-invalid.01" "alpha" "alpha.beta" "alpha.beta.1" "alpha.1" "alpha+beta" "alpha_beta" "alpha." "alpha.." "beta" "1.0.0-alpha_beta" "-alpha." "1.0.0-alpha.." "1.0.0-alpha..1" "1.0.0-alpha...1" "1.0.0-alpha....1" "1.0.0-alpha.....1" "1.0.0-alpha......1" "1.0.0-alpha.......1" "01.1.1" "1.01.1" "1.1.01" "1.2.3.DEV" "1.2-SNAPSHOT" "1.2.31.2.3----RC-SNAPSHOT.12.09.1--..12+788" "1.2-RC-SNAPSHOT" "-1.0.3-gamma+b7718" "+justmeta" "9.8.7+meta+meta" "9.8.7-whatever+meta+meta" "99999999999999999999999.999999999999999999.99999999999999999----RC-SNAPSHOT.12.09.1--------------------------------..12") function _fatal { echo -e "\e[31mFATAL\e[0m $@" exit 1 } function _ok { echo -e "\e[32m OK\e[0m $@" } echo ">> Testing valid version numbers <<" for var in "${MUST_MATCH[@]}"; do if [[ "$var" =~ ^($D)\.($D)\.($D)(-(($D|$PW)(\.($D|$PW))*))?(\+($MW(\.$MW)*))?$ ]]; then MAJOR="${BASH_REMATCH[1]}" MINOR="${BASH_REMATCH[2]:-""}" PATCH="${BASH_REMATCH[3]:-""}" PRE_RELEASE="${BASH_REMATCH[5]:-""}" BUILD_METADATA="${BASH_REMATCH[10]:-""}" _ok "$var -> ($MAJOR) ($MINOR) ($PATCH) ($PRE_RELEASE) ($BUILD_METADATA)" else _fatal "regex didn't match '$var'" fi done echo "" echo ">> Testing invalid version numbers <<" for var in "${MUST_NOT_MATCH[@]}"; do if [[ "$var" =~ ^($D)\.($D)\.($D)(-(($D|$PW)(\.($D|$PW))*))?(\+($MW(\.$MW)*))?$ ]]; then _fatal "regex matched '$var'" else _ok "'$var' recognized as invalid" fi done echo "" _ok "All tests passed" exit 0 ``` and here's the output: ``` >> Testing valid version numbers << OK 0.0.4 -> (0) (0) (4) () () OK 1.2.3 -> (1) (2) (3) () () OK 10.20.30 -> (10) (20) (30) () () OK 1.1.2-prerelease+meta -> (1) (1) (2) (prerelease) (meta) OK 1.1.2+meta -> (1) (1) (2) () (meta) OK 1.1.2+meta-valid -> (1) (1) (2) () (meta-valid) OK 1.0.0-alpha -> (1) (0) (0) (alpha) () OK 1.0.0-beta -> (1) (0) (0) (beta) () OK 1.0.0-alpha.beta -> (1) (0) (0) (alpha.beta) () OK 1.0.0-alpha.beta.1 -> (1) (0) (0) (alpha.beta.1) () OK 1.0.0-alpha.1 -> (1) (0) (0) (alpha.1) () OK 1.0.0-alpha0.valid -> (1) (0) (0) (alpha0.valid) () OK 1.0.0-alpha.0valid -> (1) (0) (0) (alpha.0valid) () OK 1.0.0-alpha-a.b-c-somethinglong+build.1-aef.1-its-okay -> (1) (0) (0) (alpha-a.b-c-somethinglong) (build.1-aef.1-its-okay) OK 1.0.0-rc.1+build.1 -> (1) (0) (0) (rc.1) (build.1) OK 2.0.0-rc.1+build.123 -> (2) (0) (0) (rc.1) (build.123) OK 1.2.3-beta -> (1) (2) (3) (beta) () OK 10.2.3-DEV-SNAPSHOT -> (10) (2) (3) (DEV-SNAPSHOT) () OK 1.2.3-SNAPSHOT-123 -> (1) (2) (3) (SNAPSHOT-123) () OK 1.0.0 -> (1) (0) (0) () () OK 2.0.0 -> (2) (0) (0) () () OK 1.1.7 -> (1) (1) (7) () () OK 2.0.0+build.1848 -> (2) (0) (0) () (build.1848) OK 2.0.1-alpha.1227 -> (2) (0) (1) (alpha.1227) () OK 1.0.0-alpha+beta -> (1) (0) (0) (alpha) (beta) OK 1.2.3----RC-SNAPSHOT.12.9.1--.12+788 -> (1) (2) (3) (---RC-SNAPSHOT.12.9.1--.12) (788) OK 1.2.3----R-S.12.9.1--.12+meta -> (1) (2) (3) (---R-S.12.9.1--.12) (meta) OK 1.2.3----RC-SNAPSHOT.12.9.1--.12 -> (1) (2) (3) (---RC-SNAPSHOT.12.9.1--.12) () OK 1.0.0+0.build.1-rc.10000aaa-kk-0.1 -> (1) (0) (0) () (0.build.1-rc.10000aaa-kk-0.1) OK 99999999999999999999999.999999999999999999.99999999999999999 -> (99999999999999999999999) (999999999999999999) (99999999999999999) () () OK 1.0.0-0A.is.legal -> (1) (0) (0) (0A.is.legal) () >> Testing invalid version numbers << OK '1' recognized as invalid OK '1.2' recognized as invalid OK '1.2.3-0123' recognized as invalid OK '1.2.3-0123.0123' recognized as invalid OK '1.1.2+.123' recognized as invalid OK '+invalid' recognized as invalid OK '-invalid' recognized as invalid OK '-invalid+invalid' recognized as invalid OK '-invalid.01' recognized as invalid OK 'alpha' recognized as invalid OK 'alpha.beta' recognized as invalid OK 'alpha.beta.1' recognized as invalid OK 'alpha.1' recognized as invalid OK 'alpha+beta' recognized as invalid OK 'alpha_beta' recognized as invalid OK 'alpha.' recognized as invalid OK 'alpha..' recognized as invalid OK 'beta' recognized as invalid OK '1.0.0-alpha_beta' recognized as invalid OK '-alpha.' recognized as invalid OK '1.0.0-alpha..' recognized as invalid OK '1.0.0-alpha..1' recognized as invalid OK '1.0.0-alpha...1' recognized as invalid OK '1.0.0-alpha....1' recognized as invalid OK '1.0.0-alpha.....1' recognized as invalid OK '1.0.0-alpha......1' recognized as invalid OK '1.0.0-alpha.......1' recognized as invalid OK '01.1.1' recognized as invalid OK '1.01.1' recognized as invalid OK '1.1.01' recognized as invalid OK '1.2.3.DEV' recognized as invalid OK '1.2-SNAPSHOT' recognized as invalid OK '1.2.31.2.3----RC-SNAPSHOT.12.09.1--..12+788' recognized as invalid OK '1.2-RC-SNAPSHOT' recognized as invalid OK '-1.0.3-gamma+b7718' recognized as invalid OK '+justmeta' recognized as invalid OK '9.8.7+meta+meta' recognized as invalid OK '9.8.7-whatever+meta+meta' recognized as invalid OK '99999999999999999999999.999999999999999999.99999999999999999----RC-SNAPSHOT.12.09.1--------------------------------..12' recognized as invalid OK All tests passed ```
GiteaMirror commented 2026-06-15 12:15:33 -05:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@stas-at-ibm commented on GitHub (Nov 19, 2023):

Maybe this will save someone else an hour of playing with regular expressions. :)

You made my day! I was going nuts yesterday trying to make it work in bash 😆

<!-- gh-comment-id:1817849673 --> @stas-at-ibm commented on GitHub (Nov 19, 2023): > Maybe this will save someone else an hour of playing with regular expressions. :) You made my day! I was going nuts yesterday trying to make it work in bash 😆
GiteaMirror commented 2026-06-15 12:15:34 -05:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@PepekT commented on GitHub (Jan 8, 2024):

Great job, thanks a lot!

I have one question, could you please explain why:

  • PRE_RELEASE is accessed with index 5
  • BUILD_METADATA is accessed with index 10

Thank you

<!-- gh-comment-id:1881550710 --> @PepekT commented on GitHub (Jan 8, 2024): Great job, thanks a lot! I have one question, could you please explain why: - `PRE_RELEASE` is accessed with index 5 - `BUILD_METADATA` is accessed with index 10 Thank you
GiteaMirror commented 2026-06-15 12:15:34 -05:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@har7an commented on GitHub (Jan 9, 2024):

@PepekT

  • PRE_RELEASE is index 5 because index 4 matches the PRE_RELEASE including the - preceding that group
  • BUILD_METADATA is index 10 because the group matching it is the 10th (counting all opening braces ( from the beginning of the pattern). Here, again, the 9th group also matches the preceding +, which we don't want.

@jwdonahue Is this good to go?

<!-- gh-comment-id:1882705857 --> @har7an commented on GitHub (Jan 9, 2024): @PepekT - `PRE_RELEASE` is index 5 because index 4 matches the `PRE_RELEASE` *including* the `-` preceding that group - `BUILD_METADATA` is index 10 because the group matching it is the 10th (counting all opening braces `(` from the beginning of the pattern). Here, again, the 9th group also matches the preceding `+`, which we don't want. @jwdonahue Is this good to go?
GiteaMirror commented 2026-06-15 12:15:35 -05:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jwdonahue commented on GitHub (Jan 9, 2024):

I think it all looks great, and on behalf of bash coders everywhere, thank you for the effort!

My bash foo is weak and it's really not up to me (not a maintainer).

Does bash process only ASCII or at least just the lower 128 code points of UTF-8?

If $D only matches [0..9] (ASCII code points 48..57), then it looks pretty good to me. Unfortunately, our current regex's can match outside that range for \d when Unicode is enabled in some environments (there's a bug for that around here somewhere).

I have made a close inspection and I don't see anything wrong with it. My main concern, as with all regex's, is whether there are any potential perf or run-away concerns wrt the bash regex implementation and this particular regex. The test data we have catches the potential issues, such as excessive back tracking, non-termination or failure to match due to timeouts, that we know about with the other two implementations and I suspect they cover that aspect for regex's in general, but like I said, my bash foo is weak.

Since there do not seem to be any POSIX compatible regex test sites to share this on, I think the next step would be to put that in a dedicated github repo; with at least a short readme file, and then issue a PR here, with proposed changes to the FAQ that includes a link back to the repo. After a round or two of review of those changes, you should get the attention of the maintainers.

<!-- gh-comment-id:1883633519 --> @jwdonahue commented on GitHub (Jan 9, 2024): I think it all looks great, and on behalf of bash coders everywhere, thank you for the effort! My bash foo is weak and it's really not up to me (not a maintainer). Does bash process only ASCII or at least just the lower 128 code points of UTF-8? If `$D` only matches [0..9] (ASCII code points 48..57), then it looks pretty good to me. Unfortunately, our current regex's can match outside that range for `\d` when Unicode is enabled in some environments (there's a bug for that around here somewhere). I have made a close inspection and I don't see anything wrong with it. My main concern, as with all regex's, is whether there are any potential perf or run-away concerns wrt the bash regex implementation and this particular regex. The test data we have catches the potential issues, such as excessive back tracking, non-termination or failure to match due to timeouts, that we know about with the other two implementations and I suspect they cover that aspect for regex's in general, but like I said, my bash foo is weak. Since there do not seem to be any POSIX compatible regex test sites to share this on, I think the next step would be to put that in a dedicated github repo; with at least a short readme file, and then issue a PR here, with proposed changes to the FAQ that includes a link back to the repo. After a round or two of review of those changes, you should get the attention of the maintainers.
GiteaMirror commented 2026-06-15 12:15:36 -05:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@har7an commented on GitHub (Jan 20, 2024):

Alright, the repo is here: https://github.com/har7an/bash-semver-regex

Thanks for the feedback @jwdonahue !

<!-- gh-comment-id:1902092713 --> @har7an commented on GitHub (Jan 20, 2024): Alright, the repo is here: https://github.com/har7an/bash-semver-regex Thanks for the feedback @jwdonahue !
GiteaMirror commented 2026-06-15 12:15:38 -05:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@markopesevski commented on GitHub (Dec 12, 2024):

@har7an ❤️ thank you very much for this. Saved me at least a couple hours of fiddling with it myself.

<!-- gh-comment-id:2539019628 --> @markopesevski commented on GitHub (Dec 12, 2024): @har7an :heart: thank you very much for this. Saved me at least a couple hours of fiddling with it myself.
GiteaMirror commented 2026-06-15 12:15:39 -05:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@ljharb commented on GitHub (Dec 12, 2024):

@har7an can you adapt your bash code to work in posix shells?

<!-- gh-comment-id:2539416231 --> @ljharb commented on GitHub (Dec 12, 2024): @har7an can you adapt your bash code to work in posix shells?
GiteaMirror commented 2026-06-15 12:15:39 -05:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@har7an commented on GitHub (Jan 8, 2025):

@ljharb I guess so, but I haven't dealt with POSIX-compliance before. Can you help me out a bit?

  • Why exactly is it not POSIX compliant/what do I have to change?
  • Are there tools that tell me whether my code is POSIX compliant?
<!-- gh-comment-id:2578309681 --> @har7an commented on GitHub (Jan 8, 2025): @ljharb I guess so, but I haven't dealt with POSIX-compliance before. Can you help me out a bit? - Why exactly is it not POSIX compliant/what do I have to change? - Are there tools that tell me whether my code is POSIX compliant?
GiteaMirror commented 2026-06-15 12:15:39 -05:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@ljharb commented on GitHub (Jan 8, 2025):

Some potential things I can see off the top of my head: declare (POSIX doesn't have arrays), the function keyword, [[ ]] syntax (POSIX only has [ ]).

Re tools, shellcheck is the defacto tool for this.

<!-- gh-comment-id:2578358074 --> @ljharb commented on GitHub (Jan 8, 2025): Some potential things I can see off the top of my head: `declare` (POSIX doesn't have arrays), the `function` keyword, `[[ ]]` syntax (POSIX only has `[ ]`). Re tools, shellcheck is the defacto tool for this.
GiteaMirror commented 2026-06-15 12:15:40 -05:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@har7an commented on GitHub (Jan 8, 2025):

I see. I'll poke around in the next few days, but I can't promise anything. Assuming POSIX doesn't allow arrays at all, I don't see a way how this would work (given that BASH_REMATCH is an array).

Thanks for the challenge, though. :)

<!-- gh-comment-id:2578373477 --> @har7an commented on GitHub (Jan 8, 2025): I see. I'll poke around in the next few days, but I can't promise anything. Assuming POSIX doesn't allow arrays at all, I don't see a way how this would work (given that `BASH_REMATCH` is an array). Thanks for the challenge, though. :)
GiteaMirror commented 2026-06-15 12:15:41 -05:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@ljharb commented on GitHub (Jan 8, 2025):

It's definitely a challenge :-) if it helps, it'd end up being used in nvm if it was reliable and compact enough.

<!-- gh-comment-id:2578377903 --> @ljharb commented on GitHub (Jan 8, 2025): It's definitely a challenge :-) if it helps, it'd end up being used in nvm if it was reliable and compact enough.
GiteaMirror commented 2026-06-15 12:15:42 -05:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@peppergrayxyz commented on GitHub (Jan 13, 2025):

I forked the bash version from @har7an and create a POSIX shell version. It uses only built-in commands (no regex) and should run on anything that has a shell: https://github.com/peppergrayxyz/posix-shell-semver

<!-- gh-comment-id:2586250778 --> @peppergrayxyz commented on GitHub (Jan 13, 2025): I forked the bash version from @har7an and create a POSIX shell version. It uses only built-in commands (no regex) and should run on anything that has a shell: https://github.com/peppergrayxyz/posix-shell-semver
GiteaMirror commented 2026-06-15 12:15:42 -05:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jwdonahue commented on GitHub (Jan 13, 2025):

Slightly off topic: this discussion on POSIX reminded me of this cartoon:

https://xkcd.com/927/

Back on topic: Any well written and thoroughly tested solution, that does not use a regex, is likely to be far superior to one that does. Perhaps we need to add some well vetted script examples to the FAQ?

Correction, a list of URL's pointing to well maintained script sites/libraries.

<!-- gh-comment-id:2588074748 --> @jwdonahue commented on GitHub (Jan 13, 2025): Slightly off topic: this discussion on POSIX reminded me of this cartoon: https://xkcd.com/927/ Back on topic: Any well written and thoroughly tested solution, that does not use a regex, is likely to be far superior to one that does. Perhaps we need to add some well vetted script examples to the FAQ? ----- Correction, a list of URL's pointing to well maintained script sites/libraries.
Sign in to join this conversation.
No Branch/Tag Specified
Branches Tags
Labels
Clear labels
bug
consensus seeking
duplicate
extend
layout
pull-request
Mirrored from GitHub Pull Request
 question
RFC
spelling/grammar
staled
update
waiting for PR
won't fix
No Label
Milestone
No items
No Milestone
Projects
Clear projects
No project
Assignees
Clear assignees
GiteaMirror ninjasurge
No Assignees
1 Participants
Notifications
Due Date
No due date set.
Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference: github-starred/semver#5723
Delete Branch "%!s()"

Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?