[Evan Huus <eapache@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Sun, Aug 3, 2014 at 11:20 PM, Bill Meier <wmeier@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Specifically:

For some/many/all? dissectors, the protocol never appears in the 'protocol' column', isn't in the list of protos, filters for the protocol don't work. etc etc

I guess something fails with respect to the
proto_tree_add_item(..., proto_..., ...) call.

Oddly enough, the actual dissection for the protocol does appear in the details pane.

I believe the changes (5460d7f & 3da89d6) should be reverted until they are properly tested/fixed.

(When i reverted these two commits to proto.c, things were OK again.

Bill

OK, yes, this is very strange.

The result of that change should be only that we *don't* fake the tree item in certain uncommon cases - it certainly shouldn't be causing wider problems like this. My understanding is that we should be able to, e.g. randomly not fake the tree 10% of the time without causing problems as it is an optimization only, so I'm not sure why adding *any* extra condition at all would break things like this.

Is TRY_TO_FAKE_THIS_ITEM ever more than an optimization? Does anyone else know why *not* faking the tree could cause problems?