Skip to content

Stats udp prefix 6304 v4#9953

Closed
catenacyber wants to merge 2 commits intoOISF:masterfrom
catenacyber:stats-udp-prefix-6304-v4
Closed

Stats udp prefix 6304 v4#9953
catenacyber wants to merge 2 commits intoOISF:masterfrom
catenacyber:stats-udp-prefix-6304-v4

Conversation

@catenacyber
Copy link
Contributor

@catenacyber catenacyber commented Dec 3, 2023

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

Describe changes:

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

#9946 without variable name shadowing

SV_BRANCH=pr/1546

OISF/suricata-verify#1546

catenacyber and others added 2 commits December 3, 2023 22:00
Even when on detection-only mode.
So that we always have enip_tcp and enip_udp in stats
and never just `enip`.

Ticket: 6304
./stats/app_layer/error/modbus
@catenacyber catenacyber requested review from a team and victorjulien as code owners December 3, 2023 21:01
@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Dec 3, 2023

Codecov Report

Merging #9953 (eae7794) into master (9c3ab36) will increase coverage by 0.10%.
Report is 110 commits behind head on master.
The diff coverage is 100.00%.

Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #9953      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   82.35%   82.45%   +0.10%     
==========================================
  Files         972      970       -2     
  Lines      273060   271361    -1699     
==========================================
- Hits       224870   223762    -1108     
+ Misses      48190    47599     -591     
Flag Coverage Δ
fuzzcorpus 64.56% <100.00%> (+0.41%) ⬆️
suricata-verify 61.32% <100.00%> (+0.22%) ⬆️
unittests 62.88% <100.00%> (-0.04%) ⬇️

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

@suricata-qa
Copy link

Information: QA ran without warnings.

Pipeline 16853

@catenacyber
Copy link
Contributor Author

S-V PR has been updated to OISF/suricata-verify#1546

Should I rebase this Suricata PR to match it ?

@victorjulien
Copy link
Member

S-V PR has been updated to OISF/suricata-verify#1546

Should I rebase this Suricata PR to match it ?

I've restarted the actions after updating the reference here, we'll see if it passes. Both suricata and SV have been updated since, so rebase may be required.

@victorjulien victorjulien self-requested a review December 14, 2023 08:07
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.

needs a rebase

@catenacyber
Copy link
Contributor Author

needs a rebase

Done in #10050

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