https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2794
--- Comment #34 from Michael Mann <mmann78@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 2012-08-23 20:36:09 PDT ---
Did another round of updates, mostly to checkfiltername.pl to enhance its
filter catching (or ignoring) ability. I'm near the finish line with the
following questions:
1. Why do some of the h245 dissectors use "h245.pkg" while others just use the
h245.<dissector>? Should "h245.pkg" be worked into the proto filter name or
should these really only be prefixed by h245 (with .pkg removed)?
2. What should be done with display filters where the proto filter name is
followed by a "version number" like packet-ehs.c that has some display filters
starting with ehs2 (presumably because there are different versions of the
protocol)
3. Are the files listed under "PERIOD IN PROTO FILTER NAME FILE LIST" (if you
run the script on the entire dissector directory, a simple 30 second task)
justified in having a period in the proto filter name? Per
http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev/201208/msg00191.html, I think we
want to limit it to "large" or potentially large protocol/dissector groupings.
Some of the files at the end of the list seem questionable as "large"
Assuming those fields are fixed, we're down to less then 1000 "questionable"
filters (right now I have the count at 1275), and at least to my eyes they seem
okay, but others are more than welcome to check.
I would also take ideas on how to integrate this into the build check-in
process (if desired). Since there are legitimate filters that the script
finds, we don't need a build check-in error for those files everytime a checkin
is done. Do we need a reference file to compare against that would need to be
updated when legitimate fields are added?
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug.
You are watching all bug changes.
