The email validator seems too liberal at times, and the code can definitely be made more concise using regexes.
Eg:
We could replace Lines 11-25 with regexes.
Also, the checks seem unnecessarily verbose,
Eg:
L23 can be simplified to : if (atPos <1 || atPos === value.length)
or for better readability, with grouping to extract username, domain etc: (I am not sure if the third part is legal, so let me know)
\b([\w.%+-]+)@([\w.-]+)\.(\w{2,4})\b
Looking closer at all the checks, I believe this regex would capture all the tests into one(including checking for dot after dot and dash after dot):
\b([\w.%+-]+)@([\w-]+)(?:\.(\w{2,4})){1,3}\b
tested this with:
foo@demo.net
bar.ba@test.co.uk
bar at@test..com
at@test.-abc.com
And only the first two are valid, which is what the validator would have displayed as well.
With this one, we can extract the username like so,
matches[0]
domain-name like so:
matches[1]
domain-extension like so:
matches[2]
I can make a PR if you guys think this is worth the change :)
EDIT: If anyone wants to play with the regexes:
http://www.regexr.com/ is a good place.
@6a68
@pdehaan
jaredhirsch
commented
9 years ago
The email validator seems too liberal at times, and the code can definitely be made more concise using regexes. Eg: We could replace Lines 11-25 with regexes.
Also, the checks seem unnecessarily verbose, Eg: L23 can be simplified to :
if (atPos <1 || atPos === value.length)Maybe a single regex like this?
or if we do not strip trailing or leading spaces:
or for better readability, with grouping to extract username, domain etc: (I am not sure if the third part is legal, so let me know)
Looking closer at all the checks, I believe this regex would capture all the tests into one(including checking for dot after dot and dash after dot):
tested this with:
And only the first two are valid, which is what the validator would have displayed as well. With this one, we can extract the username like so,
matches[0]domain-name like so:matches[1]domain-extension like so:matches[2]I can make a PR if you guys think this is worth the change :) EDIT: If anyone wants to play with the regexes: http://www.regexr.com/ is a good place. @6a68 @pdehaan