Skip to content
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

stats: always use tcp/udp prefix #9934

Closed

Conversation

catenacyber
Copy link
Contributor

Link to redmine ticket:
https://redmine.openinfosecfoundation.org/issues/6304

Describe changes:

  • fix missing _udp or _tcp suffix in stats for protocols on both

First commit of #9850 which deserves its own PR

Even when on detection-only mode.
So that we always have enip_tcp and enip_udp in stats
and never just `enip`.
Suricata needs to know beyond suricata.yaml configuration which
protocols can be enabled on both tcp and udp...

Ticket: 6304
Copy link

codecov bot commented Dec 1, 2023

Codecov Report

Merging #9934 (1dc2e5b) into master (9c3ab36) will decrease coverage by 0.04%.
The diff coverage is 100.00%.

Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #9934      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   82.35%   82.31%   -0.04%     
==========================================
  Files         972      972              
  Lines      273060   273067       +7     
==========================================
- Hits       224870   224788      -82     
- Misses      48190    48279      +89     
Flag Coverage Δ
fuzzcorpus 64.11% <100.00%> (-0.04%) ⬇️
suricata-verify 61.07% <100.00%> (-0.03%) ⬇️
unittests 62.92% <100.00%> (-0.01%) ⬇️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

Copy link
Member

@victorjulien victorjulien left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I don't like adding this kind of hard coded logic. Would like to see it work based on how protocols are registered, otherwise it will be yet another thing that a new protocol will need to update.

@suricata-qa
Copy link

Information: QA ran without warnings.

Pipeline 16816

@catenacyber
Copy link
Contributor Author

I don't like adding this kind of hard coded logic. Would like to see it work based on how protocols are registered, otherwise it will be yet another thing that a new protocol will need to update.

Agreed

Replaced by #9942

@catenacyber catenacyber closed this Dec 1, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants