[🚀 Feature]: Implement high level BiDi network commands

[titusfortner]

Feature and motivation

At the Selenium Dev Summit we agreed on this API to be generally applied across the bindings; we'll keep this labeled beta while we make sure that it works for what is needed

We want the methods to be accessible from a network() method available directly from the Driver class (e.g., driver.network.addRequestHandler(), driver.network().addRequestHandler()). We can't do everything just like this in all the languages, because, for example, .NET uses events with a += and -= for adding and removing handler events so we don't went "add" and "remove" methods.

Implementations:

Method	Java	NodeJS	Python	Ruby	.NET
addRequestHandler()			#14592	#14751
removeRequestHandler()			#14592	#14751
clearRequestHandlers()			#14592	#14751
addResponseHandler()
removeResponseHandler()
clearResponseHandlers()
addAuthenticationHandler()	#14334	#14345	#14592	#14523
removeAuthenticationHandler()	#14334	#14345	#14592	#14523
clearAuthenticationHandlers()	#14334	#14345	#14592	#14523

Considerations:

If we can figure out how to get the "add" methods return an id that can be used by the "remove" methods, that would be a lot easier for or users. Might be too complicated to implement.

[titusfortner]

I've been thinking about this, and I think the add methods should return an id. This is going to be much easier for languages that want to pass in lambdas without storing a reference to the location os the object in memory.

This is how moz/addon/install endpoint works and the id gets passed into the payload to remove the addon.

I was looking for common wisdom here and it generally seems to match — https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/314066/restful-api-should-i-be-returning-the-object-that-was-created-updated

[p0deje]

I've been thinking about this, and I think the add methods should return an id. This is going to be much easier for languages that want to pass in lambdas without storing a reference to the location os the object in memory.

Totally fine by me!

[pujagani]

Can someone help refresh my memory on the "addRequestHandler()"? - I vaguely remember us discussing the current C# implementation using the matcher and transformer https://github.com/SeleniumHQ/seleniumhq.github.io/blob/c6769ef064d8bc3ffb6343fba3c10ab4ddbad78c/examples/dotnet/SeleniumDocs/BiDi/CDP/NetworkTest.cs#L85. Is that what we want? How would that look like?

[pujagani]

@titusfortner @diemol @p0deje

[p0deje]

Can someone help refresh my memory on the "addRequestHandler()"? - I vaguely remember us discussing the current C# implementation using the matcher and transformer https://github.com/SeleniumHQ/seleniumhq.github.io/blob/c6769ef064d8bc3ffb6343fba3c10ab4ddbad78c/examples/dotnet/SeleniumDocs/BiDi/CDP/NetworkTest.cs#L85. Is that what we want? How would that look like?

I might be wrong, but IIRC the idea was to let addRequestHandler to accept two arguments:

• filter/matcher for request to be handled
• callback that receives an original request and return a handled request