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

Require https-proxy-agent only when actually needed #5224

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from
Closed

Require https-proxy-agent only when actually needed #5224

wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

ouraios
Copy link

@ouraios ouraios commented Dec 4, 2019

https-proxy-agent patches core Node methods in https for whatever reason, and that breaks unrelated code. In our app we don't use proxy, and the mere fact that puppeteeer requires the proxy package, it breaks other code.

See TooTallNate/node-agent-base#35 and sindresorhus/got#951

@googlebot
Copy link

Thanks for your pull request. It looks like this may be your first contribution to a Google open source project (if not, look below for help). Before we can look at your pull request, you'll need to sign a Contributor License Agreement (CLA).

📝 Please visit https://cla.developers.google.com/ to sign.

Once you've signed (or fixed any issues), please reply here with @googlebot I signed it! and we'll verify it.


What to do if you already signed the CLA

Individual signers
Corporate signers

ℹ️ Googlers: Go here for more info.

@ouraios
Copy link
Author

ouraios commented Dec 4, 2019

@googlebot I signed it!

@googlebot
Copy link

CLAs look good, thanks!

ℹ️ Googlers: Go here for more info.

@googlebot googlebot added cla: yes and removed cla: no labels Dec 4, 2019
@ouraios
Copy link
Author

ouraios commented Dec 5, 2019

Hmm it seems like the failing tests are not due to my changes apparently, can someone look at it ?

@mathiasbynens
Copy link
Member

Thanks for putting together this patch! As you implied, this approach just moves the problem further down the line instead of fully solving it, so I'm closing this in favor of #5243 which does fully solve it! Hope that's okay :)

@ouraios
Copy link
Author

ouraios commented Dec 11, 2019

No problem at all, as long as it gets fixed i'm fine with whatever fix is used 😉

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

3 participants