Skip to content

Add RawPacketBase as common base class between raw packet implementations. #1900

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

Open
wants to merge 5 commits into
base: dev
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

Dimi1010
Copy link
Collaborator

Part of #1899

This PR adds a class RawPacketBase that is to work as a common base class between RawPacket and MBufRawPacket.
The current iteration only takes over the management for timestamp and linkLayer as a minimal example, without defining common API yet.

The class is defined in the internal namespace while in development, with the eventual goal to be "published" to the main namespace when complete.

Copy link

codecov bot commented Jul 26, 2025

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 89.74359% with 4 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 82.80%. Comparing base (5bc893d) to head (7a7917b).

Files with missing lines Patch % Lines
Packet++/src/RawPacket.cpp 85.71% 3 Missing ⚠️
Packet++/header/RawPacket.h 94.44% 0 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️
Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##              dev    #1900      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   82.81%   82.80%   -0.01%     
==========================================
  Files         291      291              
  Lines       51596    51601       +5     
  Branches    11448    11241     -207     
==========================================
  Hits        42730    42730              
- Misses       7708     8048     +340     
+ Partials     1158      823     -335     
Flag Coverage Δ
alpine320 74.57% <80.95%> (-0.01%) ⬇️
fedora42 74.70% <80.95%> (-0.01%) ⬇️
macos-13 81.02% <89.65%> (-0.01%) ⬇️
macos-14 81.02% <89.65%> (-0.01%) ⬇️
macos-15 81.02% <89.65%> (-0.01%) ⬇️
mingw32 69.82% <55.00%> (-0.06%) ⬇️
mingw64 69.79% <55.00%> (-0.07%) ⬇️
npcap 84.73% <93.54%> (-0.09%) ⬇️
rhel94 74.42% <80.95%> (-0.04%) ⬇️
ubuntu2004 58.74% <70.58%> (+0.02%) ⬆️
ubuntu2004-zstd 58.84% <70.58%> (-0.01%) ⬇️
ubuntu2204 74.35% <80.95%> (-0.01%) ⬇️
ubuntu2204-icpx 60.75% <89.65%> (+<0.01%) ⬆️
ubuntu2404 74.60% <80.95%> (-0.02%) ⬇️
ubuntu2404-arm64 74.59% <80.95%> (+<0.01%) ⬆️
unittest 82.80% <89.74%> (-0.01%) ⬇️
windows-2022 84.71% <93.54%> (-0.09%) ⬇️
windows-2025 84.83% <93.54%> (-0.02%) ⬇️
winpcap 84.95% <93.54%> (-0.01%) ⬇️
xdp 51.28% <71.42%> (-0.01%) ⬇️

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

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
  • ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

@Dimi1010 Dimi1010 marked this pull request as ready for review July 26, 2025 17:14
@Dimi1010 Dimi1010 requested a review from seladb as a code owner July 26, 2025 17:14
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant