Chore: Update JAV Code Parser Regex

[javstash]

Description

This pull request updates the JAV code parser regex in the Tagger.

Related issue

Closes #7223

Testing

I have used this regex in several projects including javstash for a few months and it seems to be fine.

Checklist

• I have read and understood the Contributing document.
• I have read and understood the AI Usage Policy document.
• n/a I have made corresponding changes to the documentation (if applicable).

AI Usage Disclosure

Absolutely no AI assistance was used in creating the regex and writing this pull request.

Additional Context

The new regex consists of two non-capturing groups inside a capturing group. The first non-capturing group looks for the prefix and the second non-capturing group looks for the suffix.

Test cases can be found here: https://regex101.com/r/QtGRfg/1

[Gykes]

@javstash Did you want to fix builds for this?

[javstash]

Seems to build fine now. I have also added (?:\d{3})? to match MGStage codes

https://regex101.com/r/QtGRfg/2

[Gykes]

When I throw the new regex into the regex101 link you provided I get 0 results. We may need to update node first then just go back to your original working version.

[javstash]

When I throw the new regex into the regex101 link you provided I get 0 results. We may need to update node first then just go back to your original working version.

The two regex are the same, the one in the PR has \ escaped while the one in regex101 does not

[Gykes]

Yea, so I copied the Regex from the diff, pasted it into the URL in the description and none of them matched.

[javstash]

Yea, so I copied the Regex from the diff, pasted it into the URL in the description and none of them matched.

if you replace every \\ in the diff with \, it should work in regex101.

[Gykes]

Still didn't work for me lol. Give it a test and double check I'm not just dumb

[javstash]

I can confirm the new regex is working as intended with the binary built by the workflow.

Ready for merge

[Gykes]

Thanks for that. I also tested and got a similar result. I rechecked the regex101 site and I was dragging in the / at the beginning and was throwing it all off. 🤦