Nock: allowUnmocked stops working once interceptor is removed

[robinbobbitt]

var nock=require('nock'),
request=require('request');

nock('https://www.google.com', 
    { allowUnmocked: true })
    .log(console.log)
    .filteringPath(function(path) {
         return path.split("?")[0];
     })
    .get("/abc")
    .reply(200, "Match!")

function mockRequest(url) {
    request(url, function (error, response, body) {
        if (!error && response.statusCode == 200) {
            console.log(body);
        } else{
            console.log(error ? "error: " + error : "response.statusCode: "+ response.statusCode);
        }
    });
}

mockRequest('https://www.google.com/123?user=fred');
mockRequest('https://www.google.com/abc?user=fred');
mockRequest('https://www.google.com/123?user=fred');

In the code above, I would expect the first and third request to go through to google.com. However, the third request hits the "no match" error from Nock, as seen here:

$ node nockTest.js
matching https://www.google.com:443 to GET https://www.google.com:443/abc: true
error: Error: Nock: No match for request GET https://www.google.com/123?user=fred
Match!
response.statusCode: 404

I am able to get around this by using persist() but would not expect to have to do this. Is this a bug or as designed? Thanks!

[mmazzarolo]

Having the exact same issue.
Thanks @robinbobbitt for the persist suggestion.

[ronjouch]

Having the exact same issue too, and @robinbobbitt's persist suggestion works for me too.

But like him, I'm wondering if this is a bug or working as designed; the Doc / Allow unmocked requests on a mocked hostname says:

If you need some request on the same host name to be mocked and some others to really go through the HTTP stack, you can use the allowUnmocked option like this:

options = {allowUnmocked: true};
var scope = nock('http://my.existing.service.com', options)
  .get('/my/url')
  .reply(200, 'OK!');

 // GET /my/url => goes through nock
 // GET /other/url => actually makes request to the server

Which is not what's happening. Are we missing/misusing something, or is it a bug? Thanks :)

[djanowski]

Same issue here. I submitted a fix: #762.

[giannisp]

Same issue here, had to use persist() or cleanAll() to get around it.
Wondering if something is wrong with the submitted PR.

[lock[bot]]

This thread has been automatically locked since there has not been any recent activity after it was closed. Please open a new issue and add a reference to this one if it’s related. Thank you!