Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Copilot plugin does not work from JetBrains IDEs (like PyCharm) #383

Open
ptelang opened this issue Dec 16, 2024 · 4 comments
Open

Copilot plugin does not work from JetBrains IDEs (like PyCharm) #383

ptelang opened this issue Dec 16, 2024 · 4 comments

Comments

@ptelang
Copy link
Contributor

ptelang commented Dec 16, 2024

Copilot plugin does not work from PyCharm IDE. It attempts to log into github and fails.

Here is how the proxy is setup.

Image

Here is the error message in the plugin.
Image

Codegate logs show CopilotProvider getting initialized many times, which is not the case when using copilot+VSCode.
Image

@lukehinds
Copy link
Contributor

Can you try with HTTPS?

@ptelang
Copy link
Contributor Author

ptelang commented Dec 17, 2024

Can you try with HTTPS?

The UI is bit misleading -- I setup the proxy using https.

@jhrozek jhrozek changed the title Copilot plugin does not work from PyCharm IDE Copilot plugin does not work from JetBrains IDEs (like PyCharm) Dec 17, 2024
jhrozek added a commit to stacklok/codegate-docs that referenced this issue Dec 17, 2024
@ptelang
Copy link
Contributor Author

ptelang commented Dec 17, 2024

On further investigation, Jetbrains doesn't support https proxy. @jhrozek got it to work with http proxy.

@jhrozek
Copy link
Contributor

jhrozek commented Dec 17, 2024

I think we have 2 ways to approach this - we don't want to expose a third port in addition to the HTTP proxy with just the different chat endpoints that we use for Continue now and the HTTPS proxy that we use for copilot now.

We could add an option to the container to start the copilot provider proxy with http without the s. That would work but still be a bit of a hack.

I think it would be better to just expose one port, which would mean integrate with FastAPI but I'm not sure how easy would it be to just take over the connections.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants