Re: [Wireshark-bugs] [Bug 2794] Questionable display filter fields

["Maynard, Chris" <Christopher.Maynard () GTECH COM>]

Maybe it’s enough just to remind the user to check the on-line Display Filter Reference page[1] rather than trying to 
manually track every change.
- Chris
[1]: http://www.wireshark.org/docs/dfref/


From: wireshark-dev-bounces () wireshark org [mailto:wireshark-dev-bounces () wireshark org] On Behalf Of mmann78 () 
netscape net
Sent: Sunday, July 22, 2012 8:39 AM
To: wireshark-dev () wireshark org
Subject: Re: [Wireshark-dev] [Wireshark-bugs] [Bug 2794] Questionable display filter fields

Just let me know if you want me to keep track of the changed "first field of a protocol filter" for release note 
purposes.  Per bug 2794, I planned on changing a bunch once I can come up with a consistent naming convention (and then 
change dissectors to follow that convention).  The two biggest areas are "multiple subdissectors of a particular 
protocol" (ie H.248) and "common collection of protocols" (ie zbee, scsi).  My current thought is to have "multiple 
subdissectors of a particular protocol" keep the dot notation, (ie h248.<subprotocol>.<subprotocol field>) and have the 
"common collection of protocols" have an underscore inbetween (ie zbee_<protocol>.<subprotocol field>).  Comments are 
welcome.

Technically, I don't think ntppriv -> ntp.priv shouldn't need to be noted because "ntppriv" is not a dissector.  Those 
fields are part of a structure within "ntp".   To me this was one of the goals of bug 2794 - to ensure the first field 
always correponds to a dissector filter name.
-----Original Message-----
From: Joerg Mayer <jmayer () loplof de<mailto:jmayer () loplof de>>
To: wireshark-dev <wireshark-dev () wireshark org<mailto:wireshark-dev () wireshark org>>
Sent: Sun, Jul 22, 2012 7:55 am
Subject: Re: [Wireshark-dev] [Wireshark-bugs] [Bug 2794] Questionable display filter fields

Should we update the release notes if the first field of a protocol filter

changes?

In this particular example I've noticed two while looking at about 5 protocols

(pap -> prap, ntpptiv -> ntp.priv).



Ciao

     Jörg



On Sat, Jul 21, 2012 at 08:15:43PM -0700, bugzilla-daemon () wireshark org<mailto:bugzilla-daemon () wireshark org> 
wrote:

> https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2794

>

> Michael Mann <mmann78 () netscape net<mailto:mmann78 () netscape net>> changed:

>

>            What    |Removed                     |Added

> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

>    Attachment #6362|review_for_checkin?         |review_for_checkin-

>               Flags|                            |

>

> --- Comment #32 from Michael Mann <mmann78 () netscape net<mailto:mmann78 () netscape net>> 2012-07-21 20:15:42

PDT ---

> Comment on attachment 6362

>   --> https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=6362

> Fixing some more of the simpler "questionable" display filters

>

> checked in different version of a comparible path to revision 43907

>

--


CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information contained in this email message is intended only for use of the intended 
recipient. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, 
distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, 
please immediately delete it from your system and notify the sender by replying to this email.  Thank you.

___________________________________________________________________________
Sent via:    Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev () wireshark org>
Archives:    http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
             mailto:wireshark-dev-request () wireshark org?subject=unsubscribe