Re: RRC filters

[Pascal Quantin <pascal.quantin () gmail com>]

2012/9/25 Anders Broman <anders.broman () ericsson com>

> **
>
>
>  ------------------------------
> *From:* wireshark-dev-bounces () wireshark org [mailto:
> wireshark-dev-bounces () wireshark org] *On Behalf Of *Pascal Quantin
> *Sent:* den 25 september 2012 16:35
> *To:* Developer support list for Wireshark
> *Subject:* Re: [Wireshark-dev] RRC filters
>
> Hi Lucio,
>
> 2012/9/25 Lucio Di Giovannantonio <lucio.digiovannantonio () gmail com>
>
> > Hello to everybody, I've found something strange in rrc filters
> > expression, in several cases the same filter abbreviation have different
> > type, this can be a problem and/or can cause a crash?
> >
> > for example:
> >
> > { &hf_rrc_criticalExtensions_**117,
> >       { "criticalExtensions", "rrc.criticalExtensions",
> >         FT_UINT32, BASE_DEC, VALS(rrc_T_criticalExtensions_**117_vals),
> > 0,
> >         "T_criticalExtensions_117", HFILL }},
> >
> > and
> >
> > { &hf_rrc_criticalExtensions_**118,
> >       { "criticalExtensions", "rrc.criticalExtensions",
> >         FT_NONE, BASE_NONE, NULL, 0,
> >         "T_criticalExtensions_118", HFILL }},
>
> This is a side effect of the code auto generated from the ASN.1
> description. I proposed a workaround in bug 2402 comment #14.
> With it, the filters become:
> { &hf_rrc_criticalExtensions_117,
>       { "criticalExtensions", "rrc.criticalExtensions",
>         FT_UINT32, BASE_DEC, VALS(rrc_T_criticalExtensions_117_vals), 0,
>         "T_criticalExtensions_117", HFILL }},
>
> and
>
> { &hf_rrc_criticalExtensions_118,
>       { "criticalExtensions", "rrc.criticalExtensions_label",
>         FT_NONE, BASE_NONE, NULL, 0,
>         "T_criticalExtensions_118", HFILL }},
>
> But I'm not really satisfied with the _label extension and could not come
> up to a better wording, so did not commit it. Any comment / suggestion is
> welcome :)
>
> Regards,
> Pascal.
>
> Is this due to "duplicated field" names? If so one could try to rename
> them, but as I remember there is lots...

Yes this is due to the duplicated field names. Renaming all of them is a
nightmare... That's why my patch was addressing the worst case (FT_NONE vs
everything else). It will not cover all cases for sure, but it was a bit
better than nothing...

___________________________________________________________________________
Sent via:    Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev () wireshark org>
Archives:    http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
             mailto:wireshark-dev-request () wireshark org?subject=unsubscribe