Is there noProxy setting in proxy object?

[tnguyen14]

For the proxy object (https://github.com/mozilla/geckodriver#proxy-object), is there a noProxy option to declare domains / IPs that will not go through the proxy, if manual is set for proxyType with setting for httpProxy and sslProxy?

[AutomatedTester]

WebDriver doesnt have this concept. It's always been an all or nothing approach. For this to be added it would need to be raised as an issue against https://github.com/w3c/webdriver

[tnguyen14]

So w3c/webdriver#913 has been closed, and according to this commit by @shs96c w3c/webdriver@a90db4b, there is support for noProxy? Can it be implemented in the geckodriver?

/cc @AutomatedTester

[whimboo]

I'm fairly sure that we will cover that via https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1370959

[whimboo]

We decided to add this feature before doing the huge refactoring as pointed out in my last comment. Reason is that it will give us more tests and lowers the risk for regressions. But you also get this feature earlier!

I filed https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1387094 to get this implemented.

[estradino]

When is this due to be released?

[andreastt]

@estradino If you look at the bug @whimboo linked to, implementation has not started yet.

[estradino]

All right. Is there a way to go around that? Perhaps downgrade Firefox or use another version of the Geckodriver?

[andreastt]

You might be able to find a preference which achieves this effect.

[whimboo]

I started the implementation for webdriver (geckodriver), but then also have to get it implemented for Marionette (in Firefox). So it will be available in a couple of days but would require a new geckodriver release, which might be the one which takes a bit longer.

In the meantime just use the preference network.proxy.no_proxies_on to specify hosts which should not use the proxy when set to manual.

[whimboo]

This is all done now and will be available with Firefox 57 and the next release of geckodriver.

[tahayk]

I want to clear the No Proxy forlist, so I tried the selenium-webdriver 3.5.0, geckodriver-v0.19.0-linux64 with Firefox Quantum 57.0b3, Firefox Quantum 57.0b4, FireFox Nightly 58.0a1 and FireFox Nightly 58.0a1 using this proxy codes:

var fproxy=proxy.manual({
				http: 'IP:PORT',
				bypass:[""]
				bypass:[]
                                bypass:undefined				
			});

for bypass: undefined, the No Proxy for list remains localhost, 127.0.0.1
for bypass: [] and bypass: [""], I get this error message: InvalidArgumentError: Expected [object String] "" to be an Array

[andreastt]

@tahaykACF See the README or the WebDriver specification for the accepted input.

[whimboo]

I have no idea what bypass should be here. If you are using a specific binding you should talk to the maintainers in how they are supporting the proxy capabilities. The above doesn't really tell me anything.

But what I noticed is that I missed to update the README file of geckodriver for proxy capabilities when working on the above mentioned bug. I filed bug 1404891 to get this fixed.

Basically you need ´"noProxy": [list of hosts]` to list all exceptions.

[whimboo]

Oh and @tahaykACF thanks for noticing!

[tnguyen14]

Can this be re-opened?

According to https://github.com/SeleniumHQ/selenium/wiki/JsonWireProtocol#proxy-json-object, noProxy should be a string, not an array.

[whimboo]

No. In the webdriver specification this is a list now. The binding you are using has to take care of it. See also SeleniumHQ/selenium#5004.

[tnguyen14]

Ah ok. Do you know if there's an issue for the ChromeDriver to convert it to a list?

[whimboo]

You want to ask the Chrome team, and not us. :)

[tnguyen14]

Do you know if the webdriver spec for this was changed recently, or if it's been a list all along?

[whimboo]

Please lets really follow-up on SeleniumHQ/selenium#5004.

There is nothing more to comment on this issue.

[lock]

This issue has been automatically locked since there has not been any recent activity after it was closed. If you have run into an issue you think is related, please open a new issue.