Wireshark mailing list archives
Re: hf_http_response_code in packet-http.c
From: Pascal Quantin <pascal.quantin () gmail com>
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2017 20:25:39 +0200
Le 13 juil. 2017 19:54, "Sultan, Hassan" <sultah () amazon com> a écrit :
-----Original Message----- From: Pascal Quantin [mailto:pascal.quantin () gmail com] Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2017 10:39 AM To: Developer support list for Wireshark <wireshark-dev () wireshark org> Cc: Sultan, Hassan <sultah () amazon com> Subject: Re: [Wireshark-dev] hf_http_response_code in packet-http.c Hi Hassan, 2017-07-13 19:25 GMT+02:00 Sultan, Hassan via Wireshark-dev <wireshark- dev () wireshark org <mailto:wireshark-dev () wireshark org> >: > -----Original Message----- > From: Wireshark-dev [mailto:wireshark-dev-bounces () wireshark org <mailto:wireshark-dev-bounces () wireshark org> ] On Behalf > Of Erik de Jong > Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2017 10:12 PM > To: Developer support list for Wireshark <wireshark- dev () wireshark org <mailto:wireshark-dev () wireshark org> > > Subject: Re: [Wireshark-dev] hf_http_response_code in
packet-http.c
> > > > On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 1:12 AM, Sultan, Hassan via Wireshark-dev <wireshark- > dev () wireshark org <mailto:dev () wireshark org> <mailto:wireshark- dev () wireshark org <mailto:wireshark-dev () wireshark org> > > wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > I am starting to learn the Wireshark code base, and one
thing
puzzles > me… > > > > Why is hf_http_response_code defined as a FT_UINT16 with BASE_DEC > rather than an FT_STRING ? > > > > It’s a text field… not an integer. > > > Presenting it as a number allows for filtering like: > http.response.code > 200 > > Which would not be possible when presented as a string. Thanks for the info, but in that case would it not be more
appropriate to
have the normal field as an FT_STRING and add a generated field as
FT_UINT16
? My understanding of generated fields is that this is their purpose :
represent
data that doesn't exactly correspond to the packet data. We could still keep the field named as is today (hence ensuring all existing filters still work), but simply make it a generated field, and
add an
FT_STRING to represent the actual data as it is in the packet. Thoughts ? Does having the field as it is designed today generating you any issue?
For fields
having numerical values only, it makes much more sense to have the digits directly instead of the string and that's already what we are doing in
numerous
places. And personally I do not see any valid reason to change that. Your suggestion implies that many fields would start to be duplicated without
any
added value.
My reason is that anyone wanting to build automation based on Wireshark's parsing will not be able to rely on Wireshark's reporting of field type & format to interpret the packet data. The automation would walk through parsed fields and be told that the http response code is a 3-bytes UINT16 with value say 200, so bytes 00 00 c8, which is wrong. Right now the way these fields are setup works for human interpretation, by people looking at the rendered value on a screen, but it is far from ideal for automation. Thanks fact that HTTP is text based does not change the fact that the code is supposed to be a number. So I'm not sure to get your point. Moreover tons of people use tshark for automation and I do not remember someone complaining about the current output. So maybe I simply did not understand your use case. One could argue it's the main purpose of Wireshark, but I think it needlessly prevent a whole class of use-cases from being achieved with Wireshark's technology. Could you elaborate? What use case do you have in mind exactly? Thanks, Hassan
___________________________________________________________________________ Sent via: Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev () wireshark org> Archives: https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev Unsubscribe: https://www.wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev mailto:wireshark-dev-request () wireshark org?subject=unsubscribe
Current thread:
- hf_http_response_code in packet-http.c Sultan, Hassan via Wireshark-dev (Jul 12)
- Re: hf_http_response_code in packet-http.c Erik de Jong (Jul 12)
- Re: hf_http_response_code in packet-http.c Sultan, Hassan via Wireshark-dev (Jul 13)
- Re: hf_http_response_code in packet-http.c Pascal Quantin (Jul 13)
- Re: hf_http_response_code in packet-http.c Sultan, Hassan via Wireshark-dev (Jul 13)
- Re: hf_http_response_code in packet-http.c Pascal Quantin (Jul 13)
- Re: hf_http_response_code in packet-http.c Sultan, Hassan via Wireshark-dev (Jul 13)
- Re: hf_http_response_code in packet-http.c Erik de Jong (Jul 13)
- Re: hf_http_response_code in packet-http.c Sultan, Hassan via Wireshark-dev (Jul 13)
- Re: hf_http_response_code in packet-http.c Pascal Quantin (Jul 13)
- Re: hf_http_response_code in packet-http.c Sultan, Hassan via Wireshark-dev (Jul 13)
- Re: hf_http_response_code in packet-http.c Jaap Keuter (Jul 15)
- Re: hf_http_response_code in packet-http.c Sultan, Hassan via Wireshark-dev (Jul 17)
- Re: hf_http_response_code in packet-http.c Anders Broman (Jul 17)
- Re: hf_http_response_code in packet-http.c Guy Harris (Jul 17)
- Re: hf_http_response_code in packet-http.c Sultan, Hassan via Wireshark-dev (Jul 13)
- Re: hf_http_response_code in packet-http.c Erik de Jong (Jul 12)