Wireshark · Wireshark-dev: Re: [Wireshark-dev] Addressing FT_ types

[mmann78@xxxxxxxxxxxx]

Ok, so I'm trying to go down the route of adding different "BASE" types for FT_BYTES.  I thought it would be fairly straightforward, but the problem I'm running into is that fvalue_to_string_repr() never gets the "BASE" value so I can distinguish between BASE_NONE, BASE_DOT and BASE_DASH.

 

Could it be as simple as just adding another parameter to fvalue_to_string_repr?  Grepping where fvalue_to_string_repr is used seems to indicate that not all calls to it will have "BASE" value available. 

 

Wanted to ask for guidance before I go down some errant rabbit holes (or just not completely understand all of the uses of fvalue_to_string_repr).

 

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Alexis La Goutte <alexis.lagoutte@xxxxxxxxx>
To: Developer support list for Wireshark <wireshark-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tue, Dec 30, 2014 4:47 am
Subject: Re: [Wireshark-dev] Addressing FT_ types

On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 6:35 PM, Pascal Quantin <pascal.quantin@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Le 29 déc. 2014 16:59, <mmann78@xxxxxxxxxxxx> a écrit :

>
> I was looking to add an FT_ enumeration for Fibre Channel addresses.  See https://code.wireshark.org/review/6098/  for my attempt. Because the Fibre Channel address already had an "address type" (AT_FC), I thought a corresponding FT_ was appropriate.   That seems to be how many of the "address types" are turned into field types.  The review comments so far suggest that maybe an FT_ enumeration isn't the way to go, so I thought I'd pose the question to -dev. 
>  
> A Fibre Channel address is a 3 byte value, displayed with a decimal between each byte, displayed as hex values (ie ff.ff.ff).  It does not have a "name resolution" component (like IP or Ethernet addresses).
>  
> So if you're creating an hf_ item for it, I believe any of the following could be the way to represent it. 
>  
> 1. FT_FC, BASE_NONE (current approach)
> 2a. FT_UINT24, BASE_DOT (Suggestion that BASE_DOT would but a decimal between each byte value).  proto_tree_add_item using the hf_ field would need a ENC_BIG_ENDIAN parameter.
> 2b. FT_UINT24, BASE_HEX|BASE_DOT (to ensure bytes are represented as hexadecimal.  So an IPv4 address could be considered FT_UINT32, BASE_DEC|BASE_DOT if not for the name resolution)
> 3. FT_BYTES, BASE_DOT (perhaps other address types could just be different "punctuation" BASEs between their byte values)
>  
>  
> I'm looking for the "best", or at least "most consistent" approach.  I also don't mind taking the time to change other existing methods to be able to identify/keep that consistency.  Big picture is trying to cleanup address_to_str functionality as some of the comments in the code suggest.
>

Hi,

On my side I like option 3.

Hi,

For me, don't add a new FT_ type if there is no "resolve functions" (like resolve name for IPv4/IPv6/ Ethernet/EUI64...)

I like the option 3 too (add also BASE_DASH...)

Regards,

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

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