On Wed, Aug 22, 2007 at 03:39:24PM -0400, Maynard, Chris wrote: > I was looking at the display filter fields recently and noticed that > there seem to be some display filter field naming mistakes/typos. > Basically, there are a lot of naming inconsistencies, and in at least > one case, no name at all. Here are a just a few of the dissectors > that seem affected:
> There are a lot more, but for brevity, I haven't listed them all here. > Is reporting this on the developer's list sufficient, or should I open > a bug for all/some of them? Thanks for you report! Please submit a bug report with the examples you listed in this e-mail (no sense in wasting your time going through to find all of them). Hopefully someone will find the time to then start cleaning these up :) > Perhaps there should be a more strict naming convention? Is there a > way to automate the names so typos, missing fields, etc. can be > avoided? Interesting idea. I am all for making a template to help developers pick field names (it can be tricky when you have a lot in a single dissector). Steve _______________________________________________ Wireshark-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.wireshark.org/mailman/listinfo/wireshark-dev
