Skip to content

Conversation

@emhagman
Copy link

This feature allows --allow-hosts to support CIDR blocks. This is useful inside Docker since different services can get any range of IPs (typically on 172.17.0.0/16 or 172.20.0.0/16) and pytest-socket doesn't support hostnames.

I can also add hostname support if we think that is useful.

@ingvaldlorentzen
Copy link

Any chance of getting this merged? Would absolutely love this feature for our CI pipelines!
Alternatively #80 would also solve this issue for us.

@emhagman
Copy link
Author

emhagman commented Nov 23, 2021

Any chance of getting this merged? Would absolutely love this feature for our CI pipelines! Alternatively #80 would also solve this issue for us.

We've been pointing to our fork. Unfortunately it doesn't seem these pull requests are looked at. We have a case where we are going to need the hostname support as well in the near future

@miketheman miketheman added the enhancement New feature or request label Nov 23, 2021
@miketheman
Copy link
Owner

Unfortunately it doesn't seem these pull requests are looked at.

They do get looked at - this specific one is failing a check which would need to be resolved.

@emhagman
Copy link
Author

emhagman commented Nov 23, 2021

Unfortunately it doesn't seem these pull requests are looked at.

They do get looked at - this specific one is failing a check which would need to be resolved.

A complexity check off by one...? OK, I can fix it. I appreciate your work, it just would have been nice to get an update or hint that we'd like to merge it

@qlty-cloud-legacy
Copy link

Code Climate has analyzed commit 79ccf47 and detected 0 issues on this pull request.

View more on Code Climate.

@emhagman
Copy link
Author

@miketheman should be all set now!

@miketheman miketheman mentioned this pull request Dec 29, 2022
@mgaitan
Copy link
Contributor

mgaitan commented Dec 29, 2022

@miketheman @emhagman how could I help to get this merged? Should I open a new PR fixing the conflict ?

@djanowski
Copy link

@miketheman Any chance of getting this merged, or @mgaitan's alternative #185?

@emhagman
Copy link
Author

I'd just take #185 over this. Don't want to fix conflicts, this has been open forever. We've just been using our fork forever now.

@emhagman emhagman closed this Mar 16, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

enhancement New feature or request

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants