You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
As noted in #789 (comment), it's very frequently misused.
Users who want that behavior would likely be better served by having to opt into it more explicitly with a call like doesNotContainMatch("(?s)^.*something.*$"). Unfortunately, even that is likely to lead to misuse: If users omit (?s), then . does not match newlines, so any string with a newline will pass a test like doesNotContainMatch("^.*something.*$") :( Perhaps our regex methods would ideally have enabled (?s) by default. But then that would be different from the Pattern-accepting overloads. There is no great solution here.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
As noted in #789 (comment), it's very frequently misused.
Users who want that behavior would likely be better served by having to opt into it more explicitly with a call like
doesNotContainMatch("(?s)^.*something.*$")
. Unfortunately, even that is likely to lead to misuse: If users omit(?s)
, then.
does not match newlines, so any string with a newline will pass a test likedoesNotContainMatch("^.*something.*$")
:( Perhaps our regex methods would ideally have enabled(?s)
by default. But then that would be different from thePattern
-accepting overloads. There is no great solution here.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: