Shirley Yeng 

I think I can do this like this:

These three rules get me a result like this:

#test# check
#test#
#test#
Condition: Report if both source and target match but with different count

#test# check #2
^(?!.*#test#).+$
#test#
Condition: Report if both target and source RegEx patterns match

#test# check #3
#test#
^(?!.*#test#).+$
Condition: Report if both target and source RegEx patterns match

I think I need the last two because you can't have a null match rule for source and target in one rule without picking up a complete absence of the term you're looking for altogether... if I explained that well?

Paul 

It seems #test# is just a case and to cover all possibilities, Shirley Yeng actually needs a regex, so we need back references. And we can’t back reference from Target into Source.

Jesús Prieto 

Ah... missed that.  Indeed the grouped search only works the other way... no idea why!  Probably a good enhancement request in the idea site.

Although sometimes I think a far simpler verification plugin could be created with a more flexible UI.  I don't think you need to set all these specific actions as the expression itself could probably be explanatory enough depending on where you place it.  Might have a look at that when we get time.

Jesús Prieto 

Ah... missed that.  Indeed the grouped search only works the other way... no idea why!  Probably a good enhancement request in the idea site.

Although sometimes I think a far simpler verification plugin could be created with a more flexible UI.  I don't think you need to set all these specific actions as the expression itself could probably be explanatory enough depending on where you place it.  Might have a look at that when we get time.

 Paul 

Paul said:

Indeed the grouped search only works the other way...

It’s the same in Advanced Filter Display. I guess the regex engine searches first in Source, and only then searches Target.

Paul said:

Probably a good enhancement request in the idea site.

Definitely! Now there is this option:

Grouped search expression – report if source matches but not target

And the new one would be:

Grouped search expression – report if target matches but not source

Paul said:

I don't think you need to set all these specific actions as the expression itself could probably be explanatory enough depending on where you place it.

Yeah, for example if only RegEx source is filled, the option Report if both target and source RegEx patterns match wouldn’t make sense. This option would be available only if RegEx source and RegEx target are  filled Is this what you mean?

I wish the regex management was more complete with features such as moving rules up and down, categorizing rules, filtering by category, moving categories up and down, searching by description, adding a comment field…. I wished it was more like Workbench. The truth is with a few hundreds rules, the list becomes unmanageable.

Jesús Prieto 

Jesús Prieto said:

Yeah, for example if only RegEx source is filled, the option Report if both target and source RegEx patterns match wouldn’t make sense. This option would be available only if RegEx source and RegEx target are  filled Is this what you mean?

Exactly!

I would only have a description, source, target and then checkboxes for "Match y/n", "backreference y/n" against the source and the target and you probably would not need anything else.  You'd have all possibilities covered.

Something like that anyway.  I'll draw it up and add it to our backlog in the AppStore Team but if you have any thoughts around it let me know.

I'll also include these...

Jesús Prieto said:

moving rules up and down, categorizing rules, filtering by category, moving categories up and down, searching by description, adding a comment field

So anything else that comes to mind let me know. I'll also add export/import and do that using Excel or text.  Also add some sort of conversion utility to bring in rules from the out of the box to the new format... easy to see how much a simple idea can get out of hand very quickly!!

Shirley Yeng ,

Already posted the request here:  Add a new condition to QA Checker 3.0 > Regular Expressions

If you wish, you can upvote the idea. Maybe the solution won’t be ready this time, but maybe sometime in the near future!

Thanks Jesús Prieto 

Already got my vote :-)