On 18/08/2011 15:26, Moussa.Alawieh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> Can someone help me ????????????
>
>
>
> De : Moussa Alawieh/LES ULIS/ZDF/BTECH/ZODIAC
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> thanks for your response....
>
> However, what you said is very importanty for me because I have put this
> function in many place of my code !!!!
>
> Is there any other function that can replace the "proto_tree_add_text()" ??
>
> and do you think that it exist a way to satisfy my question in the precedent
> mail ???
>
>
>
>
>
> De : Chris Maynard <Chris.Maynard@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> <Moussa.Alawieh@...> writes:
>
> > I put the result in Wireshark with the
> > "proto_tree_add_text"
> > function, but it's impossible
> > to filter this field because it's a text !!!!!
> > can someone help-me ???
> > regards
>
> Don't use proto_tree_add_text(). To quote doc/README.developer:
>
> proto_tree_add_text() is used to add a label to the GUI tree. It will
> contain no value, so it is not searchable in the display filter process.
> This function was needed in the transition from the old-style proto_tree
> to this new-style proto_tree so that Wireshark would still decode all
> protocols w/o being able to filter on all protocols and fields.
> Otherwise we would have had to cripple Wireshark's functionality while we
> converted all the old-style proto_tree calls to the new-style proto_tree
> calls. In other words, you should not use this in new code unless you've got
> a specific reason (see below).
You need to follow the advice from Chris. If you want to filter on a field
don't use proto_tree_addtext(), use proto_tree_add_item() along with
corresponding hf_* field definitions.
--
Regards,
Graham Bloice
