-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 5
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
Consider merge to nock, and nock to flatiron. #4
Comments
Not opposed to this, although there doesn't seem to be anything in this library worth porting. @pgte I have some reservations about overwriting All it takes is one smart-ass library author (or ancient library) to use Would you be open to overriding |
@indexzero Yup, no problem, fortunately http.ClientRequest is exposed. I opened this issue: nock/nock#26 |
Only to add some thoughts from the nodejs-dev google group where it's stated that bare constructors will likely go away in the future and which would leave us with factories and the intended interfaces. |
@goldjunge I don't take away that point from the discussion at all: felixge, mikeal, polotek, and piscisaureus were all for it. That's a pretty solid list of +1s |
@indexzero @hij1nx I recently finished a big refactoring of nock and http.ClientRequest overriding is included. It now contains 91 client tests (awesome 8 contributors). |
w00t! Let's drop it into flatiron! Just transfer it from the admin page whenever you're ready. And then we can just delete this repo. |
Agreed, closing issue. |
@hij1nx I don't have write access to the flatiron org. How do you want to do this? |
How about adding a disclaimer in the readme? "We recommend you to use Nock instead" or something. |
Added deprecation notice. Closing. |
Let's consider bringing @pgte's
nock
(https://github.com/pgte/nock) into flatiron in favor of this project and merging any features from this project intonock
.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: