26

Please, I need to validate Iranian postal code using regex. I write this regex for this case \b([^02\n\D]){4}[^5](\d){5} but its not working on rule number 5 and 7. please help me to fix it.

this is some rules about this regex:

  1. It's all numeric

  2. 10 digit count

  3. don't use 0 in first 5 digit

  4. don't use 2 in postal code

  5. First 4 digit is not the same

  6. The 5th digit cannot be 5

  7. all digits aren't the same

MasOOd.KamYab
  • 944
  • 11
  • 25

1 Answers1

30

The following regex satisifes your conditions:

\b(?!(\d)\1{3})[13-9]{4}[1346-9][013-9]{5}\b

Click for Demo

Explanation:

  • \b - a word boundary
  • (?!(\d)\1{3}) - negative lookahead to make sure that the 1st 4 digits are not the same.
  • [13-9]{4} - matches 4 occurrences of all the digits except 0 and 2
  • [1346-9] - matches a single digit that is not a 0,2 or 5
  • [013-9]{5} - matches 5 occurrences of all the digits except 2
  • \b - a word boundary
Gurmanjot Singh
  • 10,224
  • 2
  • 19
  • 43
  • I'm really sorry but I read some article about Iranian postal code and that seems `0` can be in the second 5 digit but it can not be in first 5 digits, I fix my question – MasOOd.KamYab Feb 10 '18 at 11:21
  • @MasOOd.KamYab I have updated the solution. Also, check the demo – Gurmanjot Singh Feb 10 '18 at 11:25
  • (?!(\d)\1{3}) - negative lookahead to make sure that the 1st 3 digits are not the same. – ABlue Jul 08 '19 at 10:44
  • I know this is an old question, but it came up in the Reopen queue. This is a very slick answer, but I'd argue that any RegEx that needs 7 bullets to explain will be difficult to maintain, especially if somebody else gets tasked with doing so. – Wonko the Sane Dec 17 '20 at 16:33
  • 1
    @WonkotheSane The explanation was needed keeping in mind the different kind of audiences. I try to give an elaborate answer as much as possible, irrespective of its complexity, so that there is less to-and-fro communication in the comments section. :) – Gurmanjot Singh Dec 17 '20 at 17:14
  • 1
    @GurmanjotSingh - I absolutely agree. I just know that when I come across code that someone has written an elaborate RegEx for, I curse under my breath. :) – Wonko the Sane Dec 17 '20 at 18:22