Some dictionaries have a double quote in their stylesheet link.

[cuongha0701]

Describe the bug
Some dictionaries cannot load css because of double quote

Affected Dictionaries
Stardict dictionaries

Expected behavior
Remove the double quote in stylesheet link, and everything works again.

Screenshots

OS and software versions
KDE Plasma 6.0.5
Goldendict-ng 24.05.13.4ac44e9a at 2024-06-14T21:18:58Z
Qt 6.7.1 GCC 14.1.1 20240522 arch linux 6.9.4-arch1-1 x86_64-little_endian-lp64
Flags: MAKE_ZIM_SUPPORT USE_ICONV MAKE_CHINESE_CONVERSION_SUPPORT

[shenlebantongying]

I don't think this related code is wrong.

goldendict-ng/src/dict/stardict.cc

Lines 459 to 464 in 65e51b2

	QRegularExpression linkRe( R"((<\s*link\s+[^>]*href\s*=\s*["']?)(?!(?:data|https?|ftp):))",
	QRegularExpression::CaseInsensitiveOption
	| QRegularExpression::InvertedGreedinessOption );
	articleText.replace( imgRe, "\\1bres://" + QString::fromStdString( getId() ) + "/" )
	.replace( linkRe, "\\1bres://" + QString::fromStdString( getId() ) + "/" );

https://regex101.com/r/gVtCyO/1

Remove the double quote in stylesheet link, and everything works again.

Upload or provide a download link for this dict. The content before replacement might be malformed.

[cuongha0701]

@shenlebantongying
Here you are: OxfordThesaurusofEnglish.zip

[shenlebantongying]

Seems a combination of

• QRegularExpression::InvertedGreedinessOption
• fix: stardict unquoted attribute value #1562

InvertedGreedinessOption converts * to *? and ? to ??.

For <link href="style.css">,
with InvertedGreedinessOption:
(<\s*link\s+?[^>]*href\s*?=\s*["']*)(?!(?:data|https?|ftp):)   < correct
(<\s*link\s+?[^>]*href\s*?=\s*["']?)(?!(?:data|https?|ftp):)   < error as in this issue
(<\s*link\s+?[^>]*href\s*?=\s*["']??)(?!(?:data|https?|ftp):)  < correct, because `??` converted back to `?` by InvertedGreedinessOption

Without any extra option, and for text abc"
["]? matches abc"
["]?? matches abc

[xiaoyifang]

remove QRegularExpression::InvertedGreedinessOption seems ok.

[shenlebantongying]

There are performance implications

InvertedGreedinessOption or Ungreedy only needs 96 steps

while cancel this option needs 144 steps

I think changing the single ? to ?? is a better fix.

[xiaoyifang]

the syntax ?? is not easy to understand.

As for performance issue, we should not take it too far , the regex match may occupy only 1% of the whole process,

[shenlebantongying]

I agree that InvertedGreedinessOption is 💩💩 that shouldn't exist.

For performance, I have no opinion. Making the code reliable first is ok to me too. Maybe I can revise all regex for performance later.