@cigien Are you thinking that you will receive a confirmation email? Did you follow the prompts on this page and then clicked the "Okay, done it" button and followed any further prompts that appear after clicking that button?
@Makyen I followed the prompts, and I clicked the "okay, done it" button, and the page says "We haven't received the email yet. Check back in a few minutes." That was a few hours ago. I was thinking I'd get an email because of this page stackoverflow.com/c/charcoal/join/submit, which says " To get access to Teams, please click the link in the email we sent you. This will verify your invitation. The email may take up to 15 minutes to arrive. Usually less."
I'll try the same thing again anyway. I probably just did something wrong.
@cigien You, personally, won't receive an email. The email is supposed to be received by MS via the email address you should have copied from the "Okay, done it" button page and entered into the Charcoal SE Teams "join" page. There's no way available for you to receive the email. Once MS receives the email, it should confirm receipt with SE Teams. Your access to the Team should then be permitted.
@Makyen Ok, so I just have to wait for all of that to happen? Since the prompts said it would take a few minutes, I assumed I had done something incorrectly, or there was something further for me to do. So when it does happen, I'll know by clicking on the Team link that's in the pinned messages, which will take me to the right place? At the moment, it just prompts me to start the process of joining the Charcoal team.
@cigien That's my understanding. It's been quite a while since I went through the process. It's also possible something broke somewhere in the process (e.g. maybe SE isn't sending the email; maybe DNS is messed up; maybe SE changed the format of the email to one which MS can't parse; etc.).
@Makyen Ok, I'll check it periodically. If it still doesn't work after a while, or I don't get instructions on what to do, I guess I'll mention it again. Normally, I would ask what the time-frame is for these things to get resolved, but I suspect I'll just be told to wait for 6 to 8 ... ;)
@Makyen I was debating whether to add these. Given the response from the OP I don't see these patterns ever popping up again. Is that incorrect? Or should I be watching these for some other reason?
@Makyen Ok, thanks. I've been wondering about the cost/benefit of adding watches in cases like this. While I wouldn't watch them myself, should I accept/reject a PR for them? Or does it not matter much either way?
@cigien That's up to your judgment. I know that's not really what you're wanting to hear, but base it on if you feel it might be beneficial. The main concern is that something might produce an inappropriate amount of FP, or by doing so bias the response which a person or question receives.
@Makyen Ok, I understand, thanks for the clarification. Also, I like rules when possible, but when judgement is needed in situations, I'm quite happy with it :)
peak[\s\-]?x(?:\W?keto)? -- literal peak followed by optional space or - followed by a literal x followed by an optional (in non capturing group) optional non-word-charecter followed by literal keto
[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Mostly non-latin answer, pattern-matching website in answer, potentially bad ns for domain in answer, potentially problematic ns configuration in answer (130): Add environment variable on scalatest by mahtabb on stackoverflow.com
Oh, no, it's fine I think. Just mentioning it, since it's common practice. It may not matter at all, and it could just be a habit everyone's gotten into :p
@cigien That pattern looks like it's already caught by Potentially bad keyword in answer and Potentially bad keyword in body; append -force if you really want to do that.
I previously watched geizer\W*tony\W*edwardo(?:\W*consultant\W*com)? and it didn't need to be forced. I unwatched it, so that's not what's catching the above pattern.
> Potentially bad keyword in body, potentially bad keyword in title, potentially bad keyword in username ---------- Potentially bad keyword in body - Position 8-22: consultant.com Potentially bad keyword in title - Position 8-22: consultant.com Potentially bad keyword in username - Position 8-22: consultant.com
> Would not be caught as a post, title or username.
I don't understand why consultant.com would trip up edwardo(?:[\W_]*+(?:at[\W_]*+)?consultant(?:[\W_]*+(?:dot[\W_]*+)?com)?)? but not edwardo(?:\W*consultant\W*com)?.
...I should definitely have pulled before saying that, because that wasn't exactly the watch I expected, but I think that what I said is still correct.
@SmokeDetector We...did that already. 3 hours ago. That's literally the exact same link (same MS report) that I already gave feedback on 3 hours ago. Why are you reposting it?
"я" means "I" or "I'm", "л0х" is obfuscated word "fool" or "square" figuratively, "урааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааа" means "Hooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooray".
@cigien Yes, the reason to use non-capturing groups is CPU efficiency. Not having capture groups reduces the amount of CPU required for a regex in all performance testing I've done for it, across at least a few different regex engines, but, of course, I haven't tested all of them. The ballpark number I use is that it's about a 10% performance improvement not to have capture groups. However, that, of course, varies significantly depending on the regex, the tested text, and the regex engine.
@Makyen Ah, I suspected that might be the reason. Thanks for the clarification. I don't have a good intuition for when capturing might have a significant impact on efficiency, but I'll go with the 10% as an approximation in the general case. I think that percentage is large enough that it's worth not capturing, unless it's clear that it doesn't matter for a specific case.
@cigien Yes, it's enough such that it should be a habit to use non-capturing groups, unless you need a capturing group for some reason. In almost everything for SD, there's no actual use of what might be in a capture group, so there's no reason to use them.
In general regex use, it's better to be in the habit of using non-capturing groups and only use them when you're actually wanting to capture. In addition to just being more efficient, it makes you actually think about what's in your capture groups, rather than just happening to have one which happens to capture what you are later interested in.
@Makyen Hmm, being aware of what one is capturing instead of just doing it gratuitously is a good point, I hadn't thought of it in those terms. Thanks.
