Re: range_string checking

[Martin Mathieson via Wireshark-dev <wireshark-dev () wireshark org>]

Yes, I'm sure I've seen an example where there is a catch-all at the end of
each of a number of ranges, then a catch-all covering all ranges after that.

I am still only complaining if a later item is completely hidden by a
single, earlier one.  If I understand what you said, I suppose I could
check whether collectively all of the earlier items hide a later one. I
suspect having a more complicated test probably find many more issues.

My plan is to fix the remaining handful of issues and check it in as it is,
then I'll experiment with seeing if I can find any others.

The only other automated check along these lines I tried recently was for
enumerated preferences (i.e. looking for duplicated IDs or strings), but it
sadly(?) didn't find anything...

Martin

On Sat, Apr 4, 2020 at 2:53 PM Jaap Keuter <jaap.keuter () xs4all nl> wrote:

> On 2 Apr 2020, at 23:08, Martin Mathieson via Wireshark-dev <
> wireshark-dev () wireshark org> wrote:
>
> It is common to have a 'catch-all' case for parts or all of the range,
> which is Ok if it comes after more specific entries.  I'm wondering if its
> worth complaining if *part* of an entry is hidden by an earlier one?
> Current output from master is as below.  I will try to fix them up where I
> can access the relevant specs, but wanted to check my understanding of how
> they work and how fussy we should be?  I will most likely update
> README.dissector to make sure it is clear how it is evaluated in order.
>
>
> Cool stuff.
> I can definitely see use for catch-all-in-certain-range, opposite of
> filling every gap with their specifics, which is maintenance heavy. This
> matches the val_to_string() default string used when no match is found, but
> then in a higher dimension. I would say let the ranges decide, if their
> union is the same as the catch-all then it’s okay, otherwise mark it.
>
> just my €0.02
> Jaap
>
> ___________________________________________________________________________
> Sent via:    Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev () wireshark org>
> Archives:    https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
> Unsubscribe: https://www.wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
>              mailto:wireshark-dev-request () wireshark org
> ?subject=unsubscribe
___________________________________________________________________________
Sent via:    Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev () wireshark org>
Archives:    https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
Unsubscribe: https://www.wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
             mailto:wireshark-dev-request () wireshark org?subject=unsubscribe