chore: proxy bypass do nothing with object result

[PengBoUESTC]

Description

if bypass return an object, 'viteProxyMiddleware' just handle the options and return directly

Additional context

---

What is the purpose of this pull request?

• Bug fix
• New Feature
• Documentation update
• Other

Before submitting the PR, please make sure you do the following

• Read the Contributing Guidelines.
• Read the Pull Request Guidelines and follow the Commit Convention.
• Check that there isn't already a PR that solves the problem the same way to avoid creating a duplicate.
• Provide a description in this PR that addresses what the PR is solving, or reference the issue that it solves (e.g. fixes #123).
• Ideally, include relevant tests that fail without this PR but pass with it.

[sapphi-red]

Maybe we could just remove this part for the following reason?

vite/packages/vite/src/node/server/middlewares/proxy.ts

Lines 122 to 125 in 7bc0169

	} else if (isObject(bypassResult)) {
	Object.assign(options, bypassResult)
	debug(`bypass: ${req.url} use modified options: %O`, options)
	} else if (bypassResult === false) {

• There aren't any description on the PR that introduced this (feat(proxy): support modify options for each request #1888)
• There aren't any description in docs
• It wasn't working but nobody reported issues about this not working

[PengBoUESTC]

yes, i was just reading the source code and found this problem, I am not sure why there is no description in docs really. so maybe remove this part is reasonable

[PengBoUESTC]

Maybe we could just remove this part for the following reason?

vite/packages/vite/src/node/server/middlewares/proxy.ts

Lines 122 to 125 in 7bc0169

	} else if (isObject(bypassResult)) {
	Object.assign(options, bypassResult)
	debug(`bypass: ${req.url} use modified options: %O`, options)
	} else if (bypassResult === false) {

• There aren't any description on the PR that introduced this (feat(proxy): support modify options for each request #1888)
• There aren't any description in docs
• It wasn't working but nobody reported issues about this not working

any results ? +_+

[patak-dev]

Hey @cisen, would you explain the context behind this PR?

• feat(proxy): support modify options for each request #1888

Let's wait a bit, but I agree with @sapphi-red, if this wasn't working, better to remove this code in 3.2. We can add the feat once we have a real use case reported.

[cisen]

Hey @cisen, would you explain the context behind this PR?

• feat(proxy): support modify options for each request #1888

Let's wait a bit, but I agree with @sapphi-red, if this wasn't working, better to remove this code in 3.2. We can add the feat once we have a real use case reported.

#2421

[sapphi-red]

I don't understand without any explanations, but by reading that PR, I guess this implementation was incomplete at the first place. So I think we could remove this.

[sla100]

So I think we could remove this.

Why remove useful functionality if it can be fixed with a simple change?

[sapphi-red]

Because this wasn't working and not documented anywhere and nobody requested this feature.
I think we could fix this, if you want this. We should document this feature in that case.
But there might be more better solution for your requirements. Would you explain why you want this feature and why not by in another way?

[PengBoUESTC]

So I think we could remove this.

Why remove useful functionality if it can be fixed with a simple change?

actually, there is no doc about bypass that with a true or Object result, so, may be we can remove this first, and then find a way to optimization it.

[sla100]

there is no doc about bypass

There is:

vite/packages/vite/src/node/server/middlewares/proxy.ts

Lines 22 to 29 in 0d73473

	/**
	* webpack-dev-server style bypass function
	*/
	bypass?: (
	req: http.IncomingMessage,
	res: http.ServerResponse,
	options: ProxyOptions
	) => void | null | undefined | false | string

[PengBoUESTC]

I mean the Type of return value is void | null | undefined | false | string , no true or Object

[PengBoUESTC]

@sapphi-red @patak-dev could U plz review for this .+_+

[patak-dev]

I agree with @sapphi-red here. And it looks like @cisen is pointing to a PR they did where they also removed this block: #2421. If someone needs this feature, let's get a proper issue or PR explaining the use case, documenting it, and adding tests.