After integrating azure app with AppInsights noticed failing dependency call to iisnodestats.azurewebsites.net

[SergeyKanzhelev]

See microsoft/ApplicationInsights-node.js#144 for information. Somehow node.js starting making calls to http://iisnodestats.azurewebsites.net:80/ when Web Server Logging turned on for Azure Web App.

[jvano]

This issue is specific to Azure App Service in which the D:\Program Files (x86)\iisnode\interceptor.js was customized to support console output logging to files on disk and to integrate with
Azure portal settings for diagnostics which are stored in the ..\diagnostics\settings.json file.

The problem is no longer present since the following code is commented in the interceptor.js in Azure App Service worker roles:

/*
    try {
        fs.readFile(process.env.systemdrive + '\\home\\site\\wwwroot\\package.json', { encoding: 'utf8' }, function (error, data) {
            var json = {};
            if (!error) {
                try {
                    var packageJson = JSON.parse(data);
                    if (typeof packageJson === 'object') {
                        json.dependencies = packageJson.dependencies;
                        json.devDependencies = packageJson.devDependencies;
                        json.engines = packageJson.engines;
                    }
                }
                catch (e) {
                    // ignore - don't capture package.json but still report activation
                }
            }

            try {
                http.request({
                    hostname: 'iisnodestats.azurewebsites.net',
                    port: 80,
                    path: '/4f66797cbb144cae967f9923eaaf0fcd/' + process.env.APP_POOL_ID,
                    method: 'POST',
                    headers: { 'Content-Type': 'application/json' }
                }).end(JSON.stringify(json));
            }
            catch (e) {
                // ignore - best effort
            }
        });
    }
    catch (e) {
        // ignore - best effort
    }
*/

[SergeyKanzhelev]

Thank you for detailed explanation!
CC: @davidebbo - should this code be completely removed than instead of commenting out?