Hi Martin, Literal vs PSNAME (and the other 2 as well) are pretty much mixed up and I was often confused which way would be the better. I think it could be perhaps an additional MR to fix all dissectors? I know it would be quite an effort but then the code would be much more straightforward.
I used PNAME, PSNAME and PFNAME because I thought that would be the right way. Since now it's mixed up, I fully agree with you to cover it the way you said. I guess your proposal is simpler, faster and easier to implement than eliminating all PNAME, PSNAME and PFNAME... Regards, Tamas On Tue, 3 Feb 2026 at 16:43, Martin Mathieson via Wireshark-dev < [email protected]> wrote: > Hi Tamas, > > Most dissectors use literals instead of PSNAME, etc - which I think I > prefer. > > However, we could try: > - moving find_macros() from check_typed_item_calls.py to check_common.py > and use that. It looks for simple #define and also matches (some) enums - > has been used to get numerical values so far > - have check_spelling.py also call that function, and attempt to > substitute for the psname arg if it isn't a literal string? > > From epan/dissectors: > grep proto_register_protocol *.c | grep PSNAME | wc -l > 169 > > so I think it would be worth doing. I'm happy to look at this (or > something simpler by only looking for PSNAME?), but it might be a few days > before I get to it. > > Thanks again, > Martin > > On Tue, Feb 3, 2026 at 8:48 AM Tamás Regős <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi Martin, >> >> "Words that appear as the name of a dissector/protocol should not be >> reported (the script checks for proto_register_protocol() calls and adds >> them to the dict)"... >> I am not entirely sure it works that way. >> >> In my case: >> >> packet-qcdiag.c >> #define PNAME "Qualcomm Diagnostic" >> #define PSNAME "QCDIAG" >> #define PFNAME "qcdiag" >> ... >> proto_qcdiag = proto_register_protocol(PNAME, PSNAME, PFNAME); >> >> example "Clang + Code Checks" (passed): >> https://gitlab.com/infostam/wireshark/-/jobs/12947400694 >> >> epan/dissectors/packet-qcdiag.c 10 / 3922 "packet-qcdiag.c" qcdiag -> ? >> ... >> epan/dissectors/packet-qcdiag.c 3902 / 3922 "qcdiag.ext_build_id.ver" >> qcdiag -> ? >> epan/dissectors/packet-qcdiag.c 3904 / 3922 "qcdiag.ext_build_id.res" >> qcdiag -> ? >> epan/dissectors/packet-qcdiag.c 3906 / 3922 "qcdiag.ext_build_id.msm" >> qcdiag -> ? >> epan/dissectors/packet-qcdiag.c 3909 / 3922 >> "qcdiag.ext_build_id.mob_model" qcdiag -> ? >> epan/dissectors/packet-qcdiag.c 3912 / 3922 "qcdiag.ext_build_id.sw_rev" >> qcdiag -> ? >> epan/dissectors/packet-qcdiag.c 3914 / 3922 >> "qcdiag.ext_build_id.mob_model_str" qcdiag -> ? >> epan/dissectors/packet-qcdiag.c 3915 / 3922 "qcdiag.cmd" qcdiag -> ? >> epan/dissectors/packet-qcdiag.c 3916 / 3922 "QCDIAG Command" QCDIAG -> ? >> epan/dissectors/packet-qcdiag.c 3917 / 3922 "qcdiag.subsys_id" qcdiag -> >> ? >> epan/dissectors/packet-qcdiag.c 3918 / 3922 "QCDIAG Subsystem" QCDIAG -> >> ? >> >> qcdiag : 43 >> >> If I add "qcdiag" to wireshark_words.txt, these lines disappear... >> >> What do you think? >> >> I will raise the MRs. >> >> Regards, >> Tamas >> >> On Tue, 3 Feb 2026 at 15:37, Martin Mathieson via Wireshark-dev < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Yes, of course. A quick check for where 'len(word)' appears in >>> tools/check_spelling.py - I think words < 5 characters won't be reported >>> anyway, so some of the ones you mention would be too short. >>> >>> Words that appear as the name of a dissector/protocol should not be >>> reported (the script checks for proto_register_protocol() calls and adds >>> them to the dict), although the order that files are checked can obviously >>> affect whether or not they have already been loaded. >>> >>> I see your other email about tools/check_spelling.py next - I was a >>> little hasty in making these checking tools use concurrent.futures - the >>> speedup is amazing though :) >>> Your help in fixing this would be much appreciated. >>> >>> Martin >>> >>> On Tue, Feb 3, 2026 at 7:57 AM Tamás Regős <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Dev Team, >>>> >>>> Is it OK to submit an MR for updating tools/wireshark_words.txt file >>>> with some words? >>>> >>>> For example: gsm, gsmtap, lte, nr, rrc, umts, wcdma? >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> Tamas >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Wireshark-dev mailing list -- [email protected] >>>> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Wireshark-dev mailing list -- [email protected] >>> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> Wireshark-dev mailing list -- [email protected] >> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] >> > _______________________________________________ > Wireshark-dev mailing list -- [email protected] > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] >
_______________________________________________ Wireshark-dev mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
