Comment # 10
on bug 8070
from Shoichi Sakane
(In reply to comment #6)
> (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.
Agreed. See https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8070#c9
You are receiving this mail because:
- You are watching all bug changes.