Matt R. Wilson

yes. despite my best intentions, I never added this functionality. This should be marked as a solid feature request.

@mikicho can you specify which client you're using? I'm against having Nock return a pretend server error for these cases as it could cause all sorts of other, unsuspecting issues....

If I may add, I think a discussion or RFC on what the API would look like to support HTTP2 might be a good first step before an actual implementation...

The PR in question was never completed, so it couldn't be merged. Valid PRs welcome.

I'm not opposed to making this available as an option for the `reply` method, however, it's already a fairly overloaded and complex signature. I think deciding on the right way...

Unless we decide to update the API in the future, I think this issue should have a new example added to https://github.com/nock/nock/tree/main/examples before its considered resolved.

@jsumners did you try @ig3 example from above? ```js const scope = nock('http://www.example.com') .post('/echo') .reply(200, function (uri, requestBody) { this.req.response.statusMessage = 'This is the custom status message' return { status:...

Nock has the "pinned" label for that functionality. But after 100 days without any activity or a PR, there probably isn't a point in leaving this issue open. PRs are...

@paulmelnikow should this issue remain open? It's unclear to me what the action item is.

@Danon I think the ask here is still unclear, could you shed some light on how you would want this to work? Or what struggles you were dealing with that...