Should we deprecate the --https-proxy option? For comparison, cURL only supports a single --proxy option via the command line, I don't know if the environment variables HTTP_PROXY and HTTPS_PROXY still work independently though...

Codecov Report

Merging #2536 into master will decrease coverage by 0.27%.
The diff coverage is 0%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #2536      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   52.56%   52.29%   -0.28%     
==========================================
  Files         239      239              
  Lines       15118    15120       +2     
==========================================
- Hits         7947     7907      -40     
- Misses       7171     7213      +42

Codecov Report

Merging #2536 into master will increase coverage by 0.01%.
The diff coverage is 100%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #2536      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   52.54%   52.56%   +0.01%     
==========================================
  Files         239      239              
  Lines       15131    15133       +2     
==========================================
+ Hits         7950     7954       +4     
+ Misses       7181     7179       -2

If we deprecate the old one we'll have to do a full dot release instead of an incremental. I don't have an issue with it if you want to go that way, but I don't think it's really needed here and don't see a reason not to support both options. As long as it's noted in the code (and docs) that they operate in the same way and it exists for legacy support purposes. It needs to be clear to people just in case they try to set both so they won't waste time as that's a personal pet peeve of mine on open source projects that don't properly notate changes like this.

Sounds good. I'm happy with the PR as is then. Unless you think there should be more in the docs to highlight it?

@beardypig Should a note be added to --https-proxy noting that you can only have one of them? It's a pretty minor edge case, but if someone had settings for both and one was overwritten that could be confusing.

Setting --https-proxy will still have the desired effect - it will set the proxy for https, but the default value will be the same as the proxy for http. http-proxy set the https proxy if it is not already set, and https-proxy sets it regardless.

Lemme add some tests ... :)

Should we deprecate the --https-proxy option?

--https-proxy should probably be hidden on https://streamlink.github.io/latest/cli.html
so people should start using only --http-proxy

Would we hide the option, but still have it function as it did? I think changing the help text to argparse.SUPPRESS would do that, the question is: is being able to set a separate https proxy useful? I’ve never found it useful...

gravyboat: If we deprecate the old one we'll have to do a full dot release instead of an incremental.

maybe it could be unified to one command

so this won't happen for some user scripts

streamlink: error: unrecognized arguments: --https-proxy

gravyboat: I don't think it's really needed here and don't see a reason not to support both options.

it is most of the time annoying to enter the same proxy with two commands,
I see this as a cleanup for streamlink.

beardypig: is being able to set a separate https proxy useful?

99% of the time not really

beardypig: I think changing the help text to argparse.SUPPRESS

if there should be two commands, this would be an option

True, the other option is to make https-proxy an alias of http-proxy.

or a new command --proxy and --http-proxy / --https-proxy as alias

I think --http-proxy fits better with the other options for http, there might be proxies for other things - do we still support rtmp? :)

Restarted the Travis build since it didn't report in for some reason even though it succeeded.

My preference is as the PR is now, we don't lose any functionality but it makes it easier for users because you don't have to set both proxies.

Broken thanks to some Travis changes. I've installed the Travis CI app for the org but I've only activated it on the main repo. @bastimeyer @beardypig @back-to just a heads up that I've done this in case you get an email about it.

I'm restarting the Travis build again in hopes that the check notated in that linked document will show up correctly in the branches interface because right now it's not there at all.