Processing rule pattern doesn't seem to respect lookahead

Follow

Lance Held

• September 18, 2019 19:49

I have a processing rule with a pattern that matches email addresses. I only want to hash the username part of the address since I need to retain the domain part, so I encapsulated the part of the regex including and after the @ to be a zero-width positive lookahead i.e. /username(?=@domain)/. Unfortunately, this results in the entire email address getting hashed instead of just the username. Do the processing rules not support this for performance reasons or is this just an oversight?

0

• 

  Kevin Keech

  • September 23, 2019 16:35

  Hi Lance,

  Lookaheads should work within the processing rules. The below expression.

  (username(?=@domain))

  With a mask string of xxxx, should change username@domain to  xxxx@domain. I tried this out within an account and it appeared to mask the username. 
  
  
  

  0

  Comment actions Permalink
• 

  Brad Bow

  • August 09, 2021 01:55

  Hi, I can't get a rule with a negative lookahead (?!) to work, I get an error about restricted patterns when trying to save the following regex as an include processing rule:

  .*\"\$name\"\s*\:\s*\"(?!ftr-audit\/RecordHlsSegmentAccess).*

  If I remove the ?!, the rule saves successfully.

  0

  Comment actions Permalink

Please sign in to leave a comment.