duplicate field names (was: displaying header field without filtering)

[Hadriel Kaplan <hadriel.kaplan () oracle com>]

On Feb 19, 2014, at 7:03 PM, Evan Huus <eapache () gmail com> wrote:

> You can reuse a single "spare" field for all of these bytes, and they
> would only cause a single entry in the filter expression dialog. I
> suspect this is the best answer.

Speaking of duplicating field abbreviation names, I was going to "fix" bug 9790, by preventing Lua-based field creators 
from duplicating existing field abbrev names. (but give them a way to force doing so if they really mean it)

So I was curious how many C-code fields are duplicated, and I was shocked to find 13,970 fields are dups.

Of those ~14k dups, 1401 of them don't register the same ftype as the original field.  Ignoring differences in integer 
size differences (ie, FT_UINT8 vs. FT_UINT16), there are still 842 that use different ftypes.  435 of them were not 
FT_NONE as one of the field ftypes.  In other words, 435 are very different ftypes.

Isn't that going to cause problems in filters?  At least I seem to get weird display filter behavior when two fields of 
the same name are very different types.

I have pretty output listing all the above mismatches, if anyone cares to see it.

-hadriel

___________________________________________________________________________
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