Iranian postal code validation

Question

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

Yellowlegs

In particular add an MCVE and detail the rules with samples of what does match or not. – Varicelloid

This seems not to be a job for RegEx after all – Distemper

Don't count on fourth rule! Many postal codes have 2 in different positions! – Registration

@AliHosseinzadeh you're right here with an update without checking 2 in postal code: ^(?!0)\d(?!([0-9])\1{3})[1-9]{3}[1346-9][013-46-9][1-9](?!\1{8})\d$ – Yellowlegs

Answer 1

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

Unproductive

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 – Yellowlegs

@Yellowlegs I have updated the solution. Also, check the demo – Unproductive

(?!(\d)\1{3}) - negative lookahead to make sure that the 1st 3 digits are not the same. – Antefix

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. – Cheviot

@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. :) – Unproductive

@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. :) – Cheviot