https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6078
Chris Maynard <christopher.maynard@xxxxxxxxx> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution| |FIXED
--- Comment #7 from Chris Maynard <christopher.maynard@xxxxxxxxx> 2011-11-08 15:08:47 PST ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> (From update of attachment 6594 [details])
> You don't append text to proto_trees; you append them to proto_items. And what
> happens if ops is zero? I think it would be better to only call the initial
> proto_item_append_text() if ops is non-zero. And within the for() loop, you
> might consider using the plurality macro to comma-separate the ops, i.e.
> something like:
> proto_item_append_text(item, " %s%c", val_to_str(opcode,
> names_nfsv4_operation, "Unknown"), plurality(ops, '\0', ','));
Well it looks like this was committed in r39635, albeit in a slightly different
format from the patch attached here. I guess it's fairly common to use
proto_item_append_text(tree, ...) instead of
proto_item_append_text(proto_tree_get_parent(tree), ...); however, I wonder if
we really should be doing this?
I made a couple of minor tweaks in r39770. Closing the bug as fixed.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are watching all bug changes.