Skip to main content
Solved

Use wildcard within a test clause


Forum|alt.badge.img

Hello,

 

I would like to use a wildcard within a conditonal statement. But I don't know if this is possible.

 

For example, I have the following records:

MeldingFor object(s) 001, 002 the date dd-mm-yyyy is later than de original date dd-mm-yyyy.

 

For object(s) 001 the date dd-mm-yyyy is later than de original date dd-mm-yyyy.

 

For object(s) 002, 004 the date dd-mm-yyyy is later than de original date dd-mm-yyyy.

 

I would like to use a conditional statement that gives me recors 1 and 3. So in this case it will become:

 

Instead, I would like to use a wildcard, so that I only need one test clause. Because in my dataset a lot more combinations are possible.

Is it possible to use a wildcard so that the test clause can become like this?

(I know that % doesn't work, but I use it here to give an idea what I would like to accomplish).

 

Thanks in advance,

Eva

Best answer by bwn

Use the Like operator, which will support % as a wildcard character.

Note:

  • Set the Case Sensitivity to what you desire, case sensitive or case insensitive.

View original
Did this help you find an answer to your question?

4 replies

takashi
Influencer
  • May 13, 2020

I think the Contains Regex operator is suitable to your requirement.

Regex example:

^For object(s) \d+, \d+ the date 

Perhaps is this one better?

^For object(s) 00\d, 00\d the date

bwn
Evangelist
Forum|alt.badge.img+26
  • Evangelist
  • Best Answer
  • May 14, 2020

Use the Like operator, which will support % as a wildcard character.

Note:

  • Set the Case Sensitivity to what you desire, case sensitive or case insensitive.


Forum|alt.badge.img
  • Author
  • May 14, 2020
bwn wrote:

Use the Like operator, which will support % as a wildcard character.

Note:

  • Set the Case Sensitivity to what you desire, case sensitive or case insensitive.

Thanks @bwn, this is what I needed :-)


bwn
Evangelist
Forum|alt.badge.img+26
  • Evangelist
  • May 14, 2020
eva218 wrote:

Thanks @bwn, this is what I needed :-)

No problems. Note the solution from @takashi will be better for the more general purpose applications of where instead you want to find any combination of 3 digits, whereas the Like solution above fits your specific samples, is simpler to write, but is nonetheless more restrictive.


Cookie policy

We use cookies to enhance and personalize your experience. If you accept you agree to our full cookie policy. Learn more about our cookies.

 
Cookie settings