Comment # 6
on bug 8070
from Guy Harris
(In reply to comment #3)
> > - You replace some proto_tree_add_item calls with proto_tree_add_text.
> > This is generally discouraged as the values can no longer be filtered
> > on this way (there are some cases where it is unavoidable, unfortunately).
> > Is there a particular reason you replaced these, or can they be left as is?
> > New code should try to use proto_tree_add_item where possible, for the same
> > reason.
>
> The encoding rule of CoAP is not simple and is complicated comparingwith the
> things supported by proto_tree_add_item().if the length field of some of
> options is zero, it means null, some mean zero.
> some length fields have a semantic to decode the folloging field.
> So, I decide to use proto_tree_add_text() instead stick to use add_item().
An additional option is to fetch the values yourself and then add them to the
protocol tree with proto_tree_add_uint(), proto_tree_add_string(), etc. That
way, you can fetch values according to encoding rules more complicated than the
rules proto_tree_add_item() allows, but still have the values be named fields
that can be filtered on, reported with "-T fields", etc.
You are receiving this mail because:
- You are watching all bug changes.