Comment # 14
on bug 8741
from Michael Mann
Comment on attachment 10885 [details]
UDT protocol support
Not sure you need a "range" for the expert info that only has a single sequence
number missing. You could format it just like the proto_tree_add_text in the
line above.
The question is would you want to filter on a specific missing sequence number?
Expert info now has the ability to be a display filter, but it's only an
"exists or doesn't" evaluation. I thought it was okay for the "range numbers"
(because it was too clumsy otherwise), but I left the single sequence number
filterable intentionally. Would you really only set up a display filter to
check for "any" missing sequence numbers (using expert info), regardless of
whether they are a "range" or not?
The issue really holding this up is the data dissector. I thought new-style
dissectors didn't have to call the data dissector explicitly, but you're right
that if you don't the data isn't otherwise dissected. I think that may be the
fault of the UDP dissector, not yours. Waiting on an answer to
http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev/201305/msg00244.html
(Regardless of the reply I can just take your patch and make any necessary
changes before commiting. You shouldn't need to submit any more patches)
You are receiving this mail because:
- You are watching all bug changes.
