-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 676
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Add Layer Build and Validation for DoIP (Diagnostic over IP) Support #1655
base: dev
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
As per the contributing guidelines, please retarget the PR to the |
Observed several issues in the CI pipelines, likely due to missing definitions for |
/** | ||
* Diagnostic over IP protocol (DOIP) | ||
*/ | ||
const ProtocolType DOIP = 38; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
ID 38 is already taken by DHCPv6
protocol. The next available ID is 58, please add it after GTPv2
@@ -437,7 +437,6 @@ namespace pcpp | |||
|
|||
HttpResponseStatusCode() = default; | |||
|
|||
// cppcheck-suppress noExplicitConstructor |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Why removing this cppcheck-suppress
comment?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Cppcheck flags this as an incorrect suppression on my local machine. Let me know if you think I should revert it.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
That is interesting. Which version of CPPcheck are you using?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Why update this file?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
same thing as my previous comment, I only removed some suppress-checks detected as incorrect
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Can you add one pcap file with all of these packets?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
yes sure, I'll revert suppress-checks and add pcap file containig all tested packets in next PR, also try to cover some missing checks based on codecov feedback
Codecov ReportAttention: Patch coverage is
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## dev #1655 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 83.16% 83.54% +0.37%
==========================================
Files 277 283 +6
Lines 48193 50010 +1817
Branches 9965 10724 +759
==========================================
+ Hits 40082 41781 +1699
- Misses 7216 7297 +81
- Partials 895 932 +37
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more. ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
No description provided.