https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13950

--- Comment #3 from Guy Harris <g...@alum.mit.edu> ---
(In reply to Mike Baker from comment #2)
> Sorry, accidently submitted my attachment comment before it was complete. 
> The questions are these:
> 
> 1.  Per Guy Harris, in his comment to
> https://ask.wireshark.org/questions/63411/multiple-lua-error-during-loading-
> issues-reported-after-install-of-win64-version-240, reports that "base.HEX"
> is no longer valid, and that wireshark API documentation is out-of-date.  So
> should a wireshark API doc bug be filed?

It was never "valid" in the sense of meaning anything, but we weren't doing
checks for validity until 2.4.

Prior to 2.4, you could put any value you wanted there (in C or Lua code), and
it would have no effect on the way that the field would be displayed; the field
will always be displayed by showing each byte as a pair of hex digits, with no
separation between them.  The convention was to use BASE_NONE in C code and
base.NONE in Lua code.  We just didn't bother to check the value.

In 2.4, there are some additional values you can put there, which will cause a
separator to be put between the hex-digit pairs corresponding to bytes; values
other than BASE_NONE/base.NONE (no separator), SEP_DOT/base.DOT (dot between
bytes), SEP_DASH/base.DASH (dash between bytes), SEP_COLON/base.COLON (colon
between bytes), and SEP_SPACE/base.SPACE (space between bytes) are illegal.

So it's not as if we ever officially supported anything other than
BASE_NONE/base.NONE, prior to 2.4, we just *ignored* the field, so that we
didn't catch other values.

A documentation bug should be filed, so that the documentation is updated to
indicate what values are allowed *and* what they mean.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching all bug changes.
___________________________________________________________________________
Sent via:    Wireshark-bugs mailing list <wireshark-bugs@wireshark.org>
Archives:    https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-bugs
Unsubscribe: https://www.wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-bugs
             mailto:wireshark-bugs-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe

Reply via email to