Repository navigation
Conversation
logaretm
changed the title
Contributor
size-limit report 📦Compared: dddddb0 (PR test merge using develop at c7d2764) Against: c7d2764 (develop) · base run #65121 ✅ Baseline matches: this diff contains only this PR's changes.
|
Contributor
Optional E2E testsSome optional checks were not successful. They do not block the merge. 7 not successful, 49 successful. See the run.
Successful checks
|
logaretm
force-pushed
the
awad/runtime-tunnel-core
branch
from
November 2, 2026 21:29
651bd2c to
3907e5e
Compare
logaretm
marked this pull request as ready for review
November 3, 2026 04:32
logaretm
requested review from
Lms24,
andreiborza,
isaacs,
msonnb,
nicohrubec and
s1gr1d
and removed request for
a team
November 3, 2026 04:32
![cursor[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/1210556?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
This was referenced Nov 3, 2026
…he runtimes Matching and answering helpers for the tunnel `serveTunnelIntegration` serves, which never throw into the server, the `intercept` option, and the managed tunnel state on the global carrier so every copy of core sees it. Tunnel requests record no span, session or request data.
logaretm
force-pushed
the
awad/runtime-tunnel-core
branch
from
November 4, 2026 17:25
cc77ce5 to
f70a9da
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Cursor Bugbot has reviewed your changes and found 4 potential issues.
❌ Bugbot Autofix is OFF. To automatically fix reported issues with cloud agents, enable autofix in the Cursor dashboard.
Reviewed by Cursor Bugbot for commit f70a9da. Configure here.
With `intercept: false` the app handles tunnel requests, so scope data its middleware sets leaked onto the default isolation scope and into later requests.
This branch has not been deployed
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
These series of PRs re-work the new tunnel implementation a second time, it acts as improvement because none of the changes are breaking.
What's different?
The new approach here, sets us up to intercept the tunnel request on the runtime level. This means it is much earlier than the current middleware approach, the tunnel request shouldn't hit the user application at all.
This allows the
serveTunnelIntegrationto be able to set up the tunnel handling on its own without requiring the user to add a manual handler on their own.For frameworks it doesn't change much, but for arbitrary server setups, it becomes much easier:
There is no need to setup routes or handlers unless the user explicity turns it off by either not using the integration or by turning the interception off.
This PR
This PR adds primitive utilities and adjusts the API in a way to make it setup the changes up the stack.