Le 11/10/2012 05:10, [email protected] a écrit :
> Pascal,
>
> Did you settle on the value, value+1? I think I have the exact same
> problem in bug 7728
> (https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=7768)
Hi,
right now I'm displaying the value like what we would do with a
value_string array: computed value and raw value in parenthesis. It is
the best trade-off I could think to so far:
oct = tvb_get_guint8(tvb, curr_offset) & 0x0f;
proto_tree_add_uint_format_value(tf_tree,
hf_gsm_a_sm_tft_pkt_flt_id, tvb, curr_offset, 1, oct, "%d (%d)", oct+1,
oct);
Any other idea is welcome.
Regards,
Pascal.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pascal Quantin <[email protected]>
> To: Developer support list for Wireshark <[email protected]>
> Sent: Wed, Oct 3, 2012 8:18 am
> Subject: Re: [Wireshark-dev] r45266:
> proto_tree_add_uint_format_value(..., value, ..., value + 1)
>
> Hi,
>
> 2012/10/3 Jakub Zawadzki <[email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]>>
>
> Hi Pascal,
>
> On Wed, Oct 03, 2012 at 10:36:47AM +0200, Pascal Quantin wrote:
> > 2012/10/3 Jakub Zawadzki <[email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]>>
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > part of r45266 (or 6427287[1]):
> > >
> > > #v+
> > > - proto_tree_add_item(tf_tree, hf_gsm_a_sm_tft_pkt_flt_id, tvb,
> > > curr_offset, 1, ENC_BIG_ENDIAN);
> > > + oct = tvb_get_guint8(tvb, curr_offset) & 0x0f;
> > > + proto_tree_add_uint_format_value(tf_tree,
> hf_gsm_a_sm_tft_pkt_flt_id,
> > > tvb, curr_offset, 1, oct, "%d", oct+1);
> > > #v-
> > >
> > > Now user type display filter: 'gsm_a.gm.sm.tft.pkt_flt_id == 4',
> > > later he checks the value in tree and there is 5.
> > >
> > > I'm not sure if it's odd only for me (have not read 3GPP
> 27.007) or if it
> > > could confuse all the users,
> > > also familiar with this specification.
> > >
> > > [1]
> > >
>
> http://code.wireshark.org/git/?p=wireshark;a=commitdiff;h=64272873f088a62b8db71e23e0e38c5c8d80194d
> > >
> >
> > a packet filter identifier goes from 1 to 16 but is encoded on 4
> bits, thus
> > my modification.
>
> > But I understand the confusion it can create when applying
> > a filter. I could add the raw value in parenthesis (as we do for
> value
> > string arrays) to make things a bit clearer.
> > What do you think? Any other suggestion?
>
> Still I don't understand why you decided to have different values
> for tree and filter.
> Why not:
> proto_tree_add_uint(tf_tree, hf_gsm_a_sm_tft_pkt_flt_id, tvb,
> curr_offset, 1, oct + 1); ?
>
>
> That's what I did first but in that case the bit string displayed
> before the filter name does not correspond to the real bit string of
> the message in the hex pane:
> .... 0010 = Packet filter identifier: 2
> while the byte in the hex pane ix 0x31.
> I found it even more confusing.
>
> Pascal.
___________________________________________________________________________
Sent via: Wireshark-dev mailing list <[email protected]>
Archives: http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe
