Hi,
As defined in README.developer:
static hf_register_info hf[] = {
{ &hf_PROTOABBREV_FIELDABBREV,
{ "FIELDNAME", "PROTOABBREV.FIELDABBREV",
FIELDTYPE, FIELDBASE, FIELDCONVERT, BITMASK,
"FIELDDESCR", HFILL }
}
};
So look up the PROTOABBREV and you'll be fine.
Thanx,
Jaap
Maynard, Chris wrote:
> OK, I will start submitting bugs and patches for each one individually as I
> find time.
>
> I'll use Guy's recommendation for naming fields, which is also my preference
> (even if I mistyped it earlier). So, for a dissector like
> packet-aim-admin.c, all fields will be prefixed with "aim_admin.", and
> similarly for the rest.
>
> - Chris
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Guy Harris
> Sent: Wed 8/22/2007 6:00 PM
> To: Developer support list for Wireshark
> Subject: Re: [Wireshark-dev] Display Filter Fields typos, missing fields,etc.
>
>
> On Aug 22, 2007, at 12:39 PM, 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:
>>
>> packet-ieee80211.c:
>> 1. There are many fields (I count 51 of them) that seem to me that
>> they should be prefixed with "wlan.". For example, fixed.chanwidth,
>> fixed.qosinfo.ap, fixed.qosinfo.ap.edcaupdate, ...
>
> Yes, those are probably typoes.
>
>> 2. hf_tag_measure_rpi_histogram_report is missing a display filter
>> name, i.e.,
>> {"Receive Power Indicator (RPI) Histogram Report", "",
>
> That one probably is a typo/mindo, too.
>
>> packet-slowprotocols:
>> There appear to be 4 different prefixes used: "slow.",
>> "lacp.", "marker.", and "oam.". Should they all be prefixed with
>> "slow."?
>
> Possibly. The Link Aggregation Control Protocol, the Link Aggregation
> Marker Protocol, and the Operation, Administration and Maintenance
> protocol are all arguably separate protocols; however, they don't have
> independent Ethertypes, they all use the "slow protocols" Ethertype,
> with the "slow protocols" header having a 1-byte subtype field
> specifying which particular slow protocol the packet contains. As
> such, perhaps the dissector should dissect only the subtype as the
> "slow" protocol, with separate dissectors for all the individual slow
> protocols.
>
>> packet-aim-admin.c:
>> Two fields are prefixed with "aim." and one is prefixed
>> with "admin.". Shouldn't all 3 be prefixed with, "aim.admin."?
>
> Or, given that the protocol is "aim_admin", perhaps they should all be
> prefixed by "aim_admin.".
>
>> packet-gsm_a.c:
>> 1. "sm_a.rr.pow_cmd_pow" should probably be "gsm_a.rr.pow_cmd_pow".
>
> Probably just a typo.
>
>> 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?
>
> I'd open bugs for each dissector (so we don't have to fix them all at
> once to close the bug).
>
>> Perhaps there should be a more strict naming convention?
>
> Or a more clearly stated naming convention. The general convention is
> that a field name's first component should be the name of the protocol
> to which it belongs.
>
>> Is there a way to automate the names so typos, missing fields, etc.
>> can be avoided?
>
> With the existing scheme in which the field list is constructed by
> hand, about all you could do would be to use macros and compile-time
> concatenation, or do string processing at registration time; the
> latter might slow down registration a bit, and increase memory use.
>
> Dissectors generated automatically could probably do better. There
> are a number of reasons why, in general, it's a Good Thing to generate
> dissectors from specification languages, and that's one of them.
>
> Registration-time checking of the fields could also help - or,
> perhaps, instead of doing the checking all the time, just do it at
> build time, with a special option to tshark, or a special checker
> program (Did somebody already write something such as that? I vaguely
> remember something of that sort.).
> _______________________________________________
> Wireshark-dev mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://www.wireshark.org/mailman/listinfo/wireshark-dev
>
>
>
>
> -----------------------------------------
> This email may contain confidential and privileged material for the
> sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review, use, retention,
> distribution or disclosure by others is strictly prohibited. If you
> are not the intended recipient (or authorized to receive for the
> recipient), please contact the sender by reply email and delete all
> copies of this message. Also, email is susceptible to data
> corruption, interception, tampering, unauthorized amendment and
> viruses. We only send and receive emails on the basis that we are
> not liable for any such corruption, interception, tampering,
> amendment or viruses or any consequence thereof.
>
_______________________________________________
Wireshark-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.wireshark.org/mailman/listinfo/wireshark-dev
