Regex in search field

General
1

Patch notes 1.2.3 states “Stash searching now supports macros, expressions, and regex” but I have been messing with it for hours and i’m no regex expert but I can’t seem to get anything other than very basic regex to work.

This works:
/3[2-9]%.*inc.*health/
will show any gear with 32-39% increased health (also catches minion health and increased health regen)

I wanted to try to show gear that have some form of double health, but can’t get anything to work.

The fact there are multiple bugs with the stash search field to begin with doesn’t help.

Anybody else having success with regex?

2

This is exactly why in a previous thread on Stash search desires I listed out being able to search be specific affix or at least make it so it doesn’t show text that’s included in the Alt text. It’s very frustrating looking for a specific affix to then have to manually look through dozens of which the vast majority doesn’t have the affix you’re looking for.

1 Like
3

Ya, I was hoping with regex support we could drill down farther to exactly what we were looking for, but apparently not. I assume it really depends on how they have that data structured and saved for the items.

Maybe some day.

4

Wait… I haven’t tested the Regex commands yet.

So you guys are telling me that we have Regex… but without the functionality of Regex basically?

How did they even manage that? :stuck_out_tongue:

5

Maybe regex works fine but what we are searching against leaves alot to be desired. Or i suck at regex, or a combination of those.

6

Ok, I just tried a basic regex search, I wanted to find any items with 15+ Attunement. So the basic Regex setup for that would be:

"([1-9]\d{2,}|[2-9]\d|[1][5-9]).+attunement"

Sadly… The character limit of the search box is too low to even put that in, not to speak of anything more complex :rofl:

Yep, that feature is a dud for now.

Edit: To explain what I did there.

I defined that the first number is only allowed to be starting a ‘1’ and not ‘0’, with the ‘d’ afterwards causing a undefined second position, followed by the definition of how many allowed positions are existing (excluding 100+). Then I defined after the ‘|’ that I want to search for everything with the first position of ‘2-9’ with the second position being undefined again, and also afterwards the first position with ‘1’ only searching for ‘5-9’ in the second position to exlude everything below 15 automatically.
I ended it with the period for finishing the search-range definition before adding the keyword of the value to be checked, hence attunement.

For a Regex function I would expect the functionality to at least include inclusions and exlusions properly, obviously with enough space to fit the command inside the box… as well as multi-level searches, meaning if I want to define base 1 + values OR base 2 + values to ensure I can get a upgrade or a potential upgrade from the available items at hand.