Skip to content

Conversation

@JAORMX
Copy link
Collaborator

@JAORMX JAORMX commented Oct 31, 2025

I got hit by this again... We should be using proxy mode when
determining the transport to use for an MCP, and not the MCPs underlying
transport which is not useful for this scenario.

Signed-off-by: Juan Antonio Osorio ozz@stacklok.com

I got hit by this again... We should be using proxy mode when
determining the transport to use for an MCP, and not the MCPs underlying
transport which is not useful for this scenario.

Signed-off-by: Juan Antonio Osorio <ozz@stacklok.com>
@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Oct 31, 2025

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 54.43%. Comparing base (4ef4a16) to head (ad59eff).
⚠️ Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #2413      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   54.43%   54.43%   -0.01%     
==========================================
  Files         265      265              
  Lines       25590    25593       +3     
==========================================
+ Hits        13931    13932       +1     
- Misses      10338    10340       +2     
  Partials     1321     1321              

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
  • ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

@JAORMX JAORMX merged commit 05b00e5 into main Oct 31, 2025
49 of 50 checks passed
@JAORMX JAORMX deleted the fix-proxy-mode branch October 31, 2025 11:31
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