Wireshark · Wireshark-dev: Re: [Wireshark-dev] Processing packet before exporting it.

[João Valverde <joao.valverde@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 27-11-2017 14:41, João Valverde wrote:
> On 27-11-2017 13:50, Maynard, Chris wrote:
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Wireshark-dev [mailto:wireshark-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
> > > Behalf Of João Valverde
> > > Sent: Thursday, November 23, 2017 7:14 PM
> > > To: wireshark-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > Subject: Re: [Wireshark-dev] Processing packet before exporting it.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 22-11-2017 17:02, Pascal Quantin wrote:
> > > > Le 22 nov. 2017 17:36, "Dario Lombardo" <dario.lombardo.ml@xxxxxxxxx
> > > > <mailto:dario.lombardo.ml@xxxxxxxxx>> a écrit :
> > > >
> > > >      On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 5:21 PM, Manik Khandelwal
> > > >      <manik123khandelwal@xxxxxxxxx
> > > <mailto:manik123khandelwal@xxxxxxxxx>>
> > > >      wrote:
> > > >
> > > >          I want to edit the bytes with full knowledge of structure.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >      There was such a feature in wireshark GTK gui. It has not been
> > > >      ported to QT yet and there are no plans at the moment for that.
> > > >      Maybe you could try to compile it or use some bin package that
> > > >      provide the old gui and play a little bit with it. For the sake of
> > > >      completeness: it's just a bit more than an hex editor, by the way.
> > > >      But points to the actual packet bytes, that makes some of the job
> > > >      you should do yourself with an hex editor.
> > > >      Hope it helps.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > There was indeed an experimental packet editor, but it was very
> > > > limited (basically as far as I can remember it could edit values like
> > > > what you could do with an hex editor, but was not a generic encoder
> > > > for any given protocol).
> > >
> > > Change proposing removal: https://code.wireshark.org/review/#/c/24563
> >
> >
> > I guess I'm late to the party because I was on vacation, but what was 
> > the point of removing this feature?  Wireshark Gtk UI development is 
> > no longer active, so there's no reason to expect any new features to 
> > be added, but I wouldn't expect working, useful features to be removed 
> > either, especially when there's no Qt equivalent.
>
> Understood. It's still up for discussion. I don't have any problem with 
> removing features. I have objections with #ifdef'ed out code without 
> continuous testing.

Oops, the code was default enabled. My bad. I was sure this was default 
off for some reason. Sorry for that oversight.