Wireshark mailing list archives
Re: FT_TYPE appropiated?
From: Jeff Morriss <jeff.morriss.ws () gmail com>
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2016 14:50:53 -0700
On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 10:14 AM, Juan Jose Martin Carrascosa < juanjo () rti com> wrote:
Hi all, I have a field that has the following content (hex bytes): 0a00020f00007cfb00000001 If I use FT_STRING, it displays 0a\n. Thus, I decided to use FT_BYTES. The problem now is that when I do right-click -> Apply as column, if I do right-click in the column and do "apply as filter" or "prepare a filter", it interprets the content as FT_STRING. Thus, the filter created by the column doesn't work. What options do you think I have here? I don't mind changing the representation of the field or fixing the column, but anything that works!
It sounds like FT_BYTES is what you should be using. But what you're running into is a bug (maybe not many people create filters from columns?). Please open a bug report.
___________________________________________________________________________ Sent via: Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev () wireshark org> Archives: https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev mailto:wireshark-dev-request () wireshark org?subject=unsubscribe
Current thread:
- FT_TYPE appropiated? Juan Jose Martin Carrascosa (Mar 16)
- Re: FT_TYPE appropiated? Jeff Morriss (Mar 16)
- Re: FT_TYPE appropiated? Guy Harris (Mar 17)