Processing rule pattern doesn't seem to respect lookahead
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?
-
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.
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
2 comments