https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2794
--- Comment #6 from Chris Maynard <christopher.maynard@xxxxxxxxx> 2011-04-13 08:02:25 PDT ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> I wrote a perl script
Automatic checking is definitely better than manually checking. Thanks for
writing it. Hopefully it helps.
> Current stats:
> 16212 "questionable" display filters from 314 files
There are an awful lot of them, but 16212? My original spreadsheet, while
compiled manually, "only" listed about 6315 of them. Was I really that far
off? Or have there been 10K additions since 1.0.1 was released? Can you
confirm that number?
> Popular categories for the "questionable" display filters include:
> 2. swapping '-' for '_' between PROTOABBREV and the display filter name
Personally, I think a '.' should be between PROTOABBREV and the display filter
name, not a '-' or '_'.
> I'd like opinions on what to do with the list and how to proceed. #1 is self
> explanatory, but #2 and #3 require file name changes, which really don't work
> well as a contributed patch (but I can compile a list of just the ones that
> fall in those categories).
Maybe we should just start with the obvious typos. That alone should clear up
a lot of them. I don't think we're going to rename any files just for this.
PROTOABBREV != filename, necessarily.
> I was also unclear of the offical rules for when to use periods in a filter.
> Once the PROTOABBREV is met and a period followed, there was a lot of
> inconsistency as to when they were applied. If this bug will drastically
> change the display filters, might as well go all the way.
Well, there are no "official" rules per se ... at least not yet. My own
personal naming convention is to use a period for every new subtree and that
periods aren't used in display filter names for any other purpose. But that's
far from "official".
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug.
