Support Multiple Comments in Packet Object

[bkayranci]

The pcapng format specification explicitly allows for multiple comments to be associated with a packet via repeated opt_comment fields. This change brings Scapy closer to that standard, making it easier to work with multi-comment pcapng traces and enabling richer annotations in packet analysis.

Checklist:

• If you are new to Scapy: I have checked CONTRIBUTING.md (esp. section submitting-pull-requests)
• I squashed commits belonging together
• I added unit tests or explained why they are not relevant
• I executed the regression tests (using cd test && ./run_tests or tox)
• If the PR is still not finished, please create a Draft Pull Request

[bkayranci]

Hi @gpotter2 , this is my first contribution to the repo. Could you please review this PR? Let me know if there's anything I should fix. Thanks!

[codecov]

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 91.42857% with 3 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 80.90%. Comparing base (b54fdb7) to head (ecab9a6).
⚠️ Report is 24 commits behind head on master.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
scapy/utils.py	86.36%	3 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #4798      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   80.08%   80.90%   +0.82%     
==========================================
  Files         365      366       +1     
  Lines       89027    90158    +1131     
==========================================
+ Hits        71296    72946    +1650     
+ Misses      17731    17212     -519     

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
scapy/packet.py	84.66% <100.00%> (+0.10%)	⬆️
scapy/utils.py	73.54% <86.36%> (-0.33%)	⬇️

... and 52 files with indirect coverage changes

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

[bkayranci]

Hi again @gpotter2, just following up on this PR. We have a need for this feature in our project, so I’d really appreciate a review when you have the time. Please let me know if any changes are needed. Thanks in advance!

[gpotter2]

Thanks for the PR and sorry for the delay of review. I have a few questions regarding the code.
Cheers !

[bkayranci]

Thanks for the PR and sorry for the delay of review. I have a few questions regarding the code.
Cheers !

Let me know if there's anything else I should take care of before this can be merged. Appreciate your time!

[gpotter2]

I also personally would have kept comments in the same argument index as comment, rather than adding it at the end.

[bkayranci]

I also personally would have kept comments in the same argument index as comment, rather than adding it at the end.

That's a fair point, and I understand the value of maintaining positional consistency. In this case, since we changed both the name and the type (comment: Optional[str] to comments: Optional[List[bytes]]), we felt that reusing the same argument position might introduce subtle bugs or make mistakes harder to catch during refactoring. especially if any code still relies on the previous positional usage. Placing comments at the end was a cautious choice to reduce the risk of silent errors. Open to refactor if you think it’s worth aligning for clarity.

[bkayranci]

@gpotter2 I hope all is well. I wanted to gently follow up on my comment on the PR. I'd be grateful for your thoughts whenever you get a chance.

[guedou]

Thanks for the PR. I made a second review.

[gpotter2]

LGTM although tests don't pass.

A change is still needed

[bkayranci]

LGTM although tests don't pass.

I fixed typing and linting issues.

I noticed a few # type: ignore lines — that makes sense here since mypy can’t infer the types, but according to the pcapng spec we know they are bytes or List[bytes]

[guedou]

@bkayranci please keep comments at the same location as comment in the methods.

[gpotter2]

Thanks for the PR & sorry for the back and forth. Have a good week