-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 107
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
HTTPS proxy support #786
Merged
Merged
HTTPS proxy support #786
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
tomchristie
commented
Sep 1, 2023
tomchristie
commented
Sep 1, 2023
tomchristie
commented
Sep 1, 2023
tomchristie
commented
Sep 1, 2023
tomchristie
commented
Sep 1, 2023
5 tasks
karpetrosyan
reviewed
Sep 1, 2023
Co-authored-by: Kar Petrosyan <92274156+karosis88@users.noreply.github.com>
I assumed we'd merge this once #721 was resolved. But I'm fine with it. |
karpetrosyan
approved these changes
Sep 1, 2023
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This PR is @karosis88 work from #732 but simplified down to the minimal possible change.
Closes #722
Deep breath...
Okay, to me there are still some contentions remaining around expectations for timeout behaviour in #732. I don't want to get too deep into this because I'm not sure the conversation effort is worth us blocking HTTPS proxy support. But briefly...
It's okay for the
read
andwrite
timeouts to semantically be "socket read" and "socket write" timeouts, rather than "stream read" and "stream write" timeouts. If that isn't quite what we want, then we're already failing in our constraints - see the write timeout behaviour when the buffer requires multiplesend
operations. In any case it'd be sensible for us to unblock any conversations on this from the higher priority "let's have HTTPS proxy support".Testing this also adds a bit additional chunk of complexity. I'm not wild about
conftest
- it's decoupled in a way that makes the flow of code non-obvious. I'm going to suggest that we go very slightly off-piste here, and add this functionality with a bigger-tha-usual chunk of "pragma: nocover", and then deal with any follow up in a way that isn't blocking us.So...
Here's how to test this functionality locally...
Installation...
Use
trustme
to generate certs...Running the proxy...
Make the requests...
Or with async...
Do we have enough in agreement here that we could merge this PR and deal with (or punt on) the above points of contention in a way that doesn't block our HTTPS proxy support?