Skip to content

Conversation

deeringc
Copy link
Contributor

As discussed here: #9

@msftclas
Copy link

Hi @deeringc, I'm your friendly neighborhood Microsoft Pull Request Bot (You can call me MSBOT). Thanks for your contribution!

In order for us to evaluate and accept your PR, we ask that you sign a contribution license agreement. It's all electronic and will take just minutes. I promise there's no faxing. https://cla.microsoft.com.

TTYL, MSBOT;

@msftclas
Copy link

@deeringc, Thanks for signing the contribution license agreement so quickly! Actual humans will now validate the agreement and then evaluate the PR.

Thanks, MSBOT;

@kavyako
Copy link
Contributor

kavyako commented Jan 1, 2016

Thank you for the pull request. This will be merged as soon as the project owners get back from vacation.

@kavyako kavyako self-assigned this Jan 1, 2016
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

exposing non-const access to this data member could be dangerous. The one new use in http_client_asio.cpp can call the member function client_config() for this.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

OK, I'll refactor

@kavyako
Copy link
Contributor

kavyako commented Jan 4, 2016

Right now we do not have any test cases that exercise the HTTPS proxy code paths. Would it be possible to add a test case? Can we use something like httpbin.org? I think it has HTTPS too, though I am not 100% sure. Another option is to add a manual testcase (with the tag "Ignore", "Manual") and anyone running the testcase can modify the credentials locally. I am OK if we cannot add a testcase too.

@deeringc
Copy link
Contributor Author

deeringc commented Jan 4, 2016

Yeah, I was thinking about adding another test case that covers https. I wasn't sure that your internal Microsoft proxy supported this (we don't have access from outside of your network) and didnt want to add a potentially failing test that I couldn't verify myself. I'll do as you suggest and add a manual test. If we come up with some other idea, we can just enable it later.

@kavyako
Copy link
Contributor

kavyako commented Jan 7, 2016

These changes have been merged to the development branch. Release 2.8.0 (under planning) should have them in the master branch.
Thank you for your contribution.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants