Wireshark-bugs: [Wireshark-bugs] [Bug 5749] Improve Connection Manager and Connection Configurat
https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5749
Michael Mann <mmann78@xxxxxxxxxxxx> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Attachment #6010|0 |1
is obsolete| |
Attachment #6276| |review_for_checkin?
Flag| |
--- Comment #12 from Michael Mann <mmann78@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 2011-05-03 10:07:55 PDT ---
Created an attachment (id=6276)
--> (https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=6276)
CM and CCO dissector update, take 2
Did some refactoring and replaced a few of the proto_tree_add_text()s with
proto_tree_add_items()s, so there's only 1 700+ line function remaining.
To me proto_tree_add_text() vs proto_tree_add_items() comes down to whether or
not the fields will be filtered in practice. As a frequent/advanced user of
the protocol, I don't think the items that use proto_tree_add_text() will ever
be filtered, so why add to the list? It just makes the autocomplete that much
more crowded. I think I forced a few of the proto_tree_add_items().
Going back to the 700+ line functions, I feel that there is too much whitespace
in those functions and that's the reason for their length. The format seems to
be:
comment on field to be added
field to add
empty line
Since the hf_ variable or the "format text" of proto_tree_add_* give you a clue
as to the field to add, some of the comments seem superfluous, but I didn't
remove them as I take it as a "style difference" between developers.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug.
