Bug 8858 (https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8858) reminded me of something I noticed when trying to apply the new filterable expert info API - there isn't a consistency among dissectors to note a good or bad checksum.
I've seen 1. Checksum field (no verification) 2. Checksum field + append_text with good/bad (or only bad) 3a. Checksum field + "bad" field filter (field is treated as "present") 3b. Checksum field + "bad" field filter (field is boolean, so good can be separated from bad) 4. Checksum field + "bad" field filter + expert_info 5. Checksum field + "bad" field filter + "good" field filter 6. Checksum field + "bad" field filter + "good" field filter + expert_info The ones that really seem excessive are 5 & 6 - do we really need this duplication? <dissector>.bad_checksum = TRUE equals <dissector>.good_checksum = FALSE. Could we consolidate all (that have checksum verification) to Checksum field + "good" boolean field filter (of the form <dissector>.good_checksum) + expert_info for bad checksum (of the form <dissector>.bad_checksum) Opinions welcome.
___________________________________________________________________________ Sent via: Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev@wireshark.org> Archives: http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe
