feat: add property so we can check if a client is using a proxy

[zlwaterfield]

Changes

We are trying to determine whether or not a user is sending a events via a proxy in the dashboard so we can customize the experience for them. This will allow us to determine that.

Checklist

• Tests for new code (see advice on the tests we use)
• Accounted for the impact of any changes across different browsers
• Accounted for backwards compatibility of any changes (no breaking changes in posthog-js!)

[github-actions]

Size Change: +87.6 kB (+10%) ⚠️

Total Size: 941 kB

Filename	Size	Change
dist/array.full.js	224 kB	+41.4 kB (+23%)	🚨
dist/array.js	124 kB	-532 B (0%)
dist/es.js	124 kB	-532 B (0%)
dist/module.js	124 kB	-532 B (0%)
dist/recorder-v2.js	106 kB	+153 B (0%)
dist/recorder.js	106 kB	+47.7 kB (+81%)	🆘

ℹ️ View Unchanged

Filename	Size
dist/exception-autocapture.js	12.1 kB
dist/surveys-module-previews.js	62 kB
dist/surveys.js	58.3 kB

_{compressed-size-action}

[zlwaterfield]

@pauldambra I'd love your thoughts on this PR and implementation.

Another route would be to add an $api_host property and do the work in the PostHog dashbaord to determine if it was a proxy. I wasn't sure if we wanted to be storing that data or not.

[benjackwhite]

Sweet - you will want to add the bump patch label so that when merged it automatically publishes.

You might get tripped up by tests here as a bunch are really badly setup so are probably throwing due to api_host not being set (too much mocking...)

[zlwaterfield]

Sweet - you will want to add the bump patch label so that when merged it automatically publishes.

You might get tripped up by tests here as a bunch are really badly setup so are probably throwing due to api_host not being set (too much mocking...)

Sounds good, I'll add a few more tests and test things before planning the patch.

[benjackwhite]

Pushed a change to fix the tests as it might not have been super obvious how to fix it.

Just needs a test for this logic now and its good

[zlwaterfield]

@benjackwhite should this property be added to the posthog in the taxonomy and property definitions?

[benjackwhite]

@zlwaterfield yeah would be good to add to the list but not urgent