[GH-ISSUE #1049] [Feature Request] differentiate domains by port #1044

Open
opened 2026-03-03 19:24:03 +03:00 by kerem · 8 comments
Owner

Originally created by @Bertrand on GitHub (Oct 27, 2021).
Original GitHub issue: https://github.com/ProxymanApp/Proxyman/issues/1049

Originally assigned to: @NghiaTranUIT on GitHub.

When developing several http services at once, most services are served by localhost, each on its own port.

In that case, there is no way to pin only the traffic on one port, and all requests end-up in the same list:

Screenshot 2021-10-27 at 09 10 45

When the list contains dozen of intertwined requests, it's very hard to follow the sequence of requests on a particular service.

It would be great to be able to edit a "pinned" entry and add a port to only see the traffic related to this port.
Of course, we should be able to pin the same domain twice, with a different port.

As for the "Domains" view, Charles Proxy includes the port in domain in Structure View to address this particular point:

image

This behaviour could be controlled by a global setting.

Originally created by @Bertrand on GitHub (Oct 27, 2021). Original GitHub issue: https://github.com/ProxymanApp/Proxyman/issues/1049 Originally assigned to: @NghiaTranUIT on GitHub. When developing several http services at once, most services are served by localhost, each on its own port. In that case, there is no way to pin only the traffic on one port, and all requests end-up in the same list: <img width="855" alt="Screenshot 2021-10-27 at 09 10 45" src="https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/4960/139017641-c1f25ca8-2a3d-4f46-b6af-10a96c24e073.png"> When the list contains dozen of intertwined requests, it's very hard to follow the sequence of requests on a particular service. It would be great to be able to edit a "pinned" entry and add a port to only see the traffic related to this port. Of course, we should be able to pin the same domain twice, with a different port. As for the "Domains" view, Charles Proxy includes the port in domain in Structure View to address this particular point: <img width="432" alt="image" src="https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/4960/139016589-76f92281-c677-4719-b45d-ef3aa8eb2234.png"> This behaviour could be controlled by a global setting.
Author
Owner

@NghiaTranUIT commented on GitHub (Oct 27, 2021):

Ah, thanks for pointing it out. It's a small flaw of our current Tree View. Currently, it's grouped by Domain, not the port.

I totally agree that we should the Domain + Port number into the account 👍

To workaround, you might set an alias name (in /etc/hosts) to your localhost service. It will group properly.

I will fix it and send you a beta build soon 🙌

<!-- gh-comment-id:952614934 --> @NghiaTranUIT commented on GitHub (Oct 27, 2021): Ah, thanks for pointing it out. It's a small flaw of our current Tree View. Currently, it's grouped by Domain, not the port. I totally agree that we should the Domain + Port number into the account 👍 To workaround, you might set an alias name (in /etc/hosts) to your localhost service. It will group properly. I will fix it and send you a beta build soon 🙌
Author
Owner

@Bertrand commented on GitHub (Oct 27, 2021):

Many thanks for your quick response.

Please note that there are really two places where this would be useful:

  • the pinned domains
  • the "Domains" view

At first, if we could edit the pinned items and add the port, then most of the need would be addressed in a very efficient way.

As for the "Domains" view, I suspect that many people like that the "Domains" view is grouped by domain name, regardless of ports.
A global setting to control "Domains" view behaviour would probably avoid some of your users complaining because of me :) :)

<!-- gh-comment-id:952619263 --> @Bertrand commented on GitHub (Oct 27, 2021): Many thanks for your quick response. Please note that there are really two places where this would be useful: - the pinned domains - the "Domains" view At first, if we could edit the pinned items and add the port, then most of the need would be addressed in a very efficient way. As for the "Domains" view, I suspect that many people like that the "Domains" view is grouped by domain name, regardless of ports. A global setting to control "Domains" view behaviour would probably avoid some of your users complaining because of me :) :)
Author
Owner

@NghiaTranUIT commented on GitHub (Oct 27, 2021):

For the simplicity, I prefer that 2 same domains with different ports should be in two different groups.

It makes sense if you work on two different localhost servers, such as 127.0.0.1:4000 for React Frontend app, and 127.0.0.1:5000 for the NodeJS Backend. The traffic of each service should be grouped into two groups.

<!-- gh-comment-id:952622981 --> @NghiaTranUIT commented on GitHub (Oct 27, 2021): For the simplicity, I prefer that 2 same domains with different ports should be in two different groups. It makes sense if you work on two different localhost servers, such as 127.0.0.1:4000 for React Frontend app, and 127.0.0.1:5000 for the NodeJS Backend. The traffic of each service should be grouped into two groups.
Author
Owner

@Bertrand commented on GitHub (Oct 27, 2021):

It is sometimes very useful to see the ordered sequence of calls across all local services.
Thus the option to add a port filtering option on pin entries.

This way you can have 3 different pin entries to address these specific needs

  • 0.0.0.0:8008
  • 0.0.0.0:8081
  • 0.0.0.0

The first two ones let you see service-specific calls
The last one lets you see the overall sequence of calls across all your services.

<!-- gh-comment-id:952628630 --> @Bertrand commented on GitHub (Oct 27, 2021): It is sometimes very useful to see the ordered sequence of calls across all local services. Thus the option to add a port filtering option on pin entries. This way you can have 3 different pin entries to address these specific needs - 0.0.0.0:8008 - 0.0.0.0:8081 - 0.0.0.0 The first two ones let you see service-specific calls The last one lets you see the overall sequence of calls across all your services.
Author
Owner

@Bertrand commented on GitHub (Oct 27, 2021):

But your proposal would already be fantastic BTW :)

<!-- gh-comment-id:952635673 --> @Bertrand commented on GitHub (Oct 27, 2021): But your proposal would already be fantastic BTW :)
Author
Owner

@NghiaTranUIT commented on GitHub (Oct 29, 2021):

@Bertrand here is your Beta build: https://proxyman.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/beta/Proxyman_2.34.1_Fix_domain_and_port.dmg

Proxyman will display localhost with different ports in separated node 👍

Screen Shot 2021-10-29 at 09 16 17
<!-- gh-comment-id:954454702 --> @NghiaTranUIT commented on GitHub (Oct 29, 2021): @Bertrand here is your Beta build: https://proxyman.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/beta/Proxyman_2.34.1_Fix_domain_and_port.dmg Proxyman will display localhost with different ports in separated node 👍 <img width="1736" alt="Screen Shot 2021-10-29 at 09 16 17" src="https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/5878421/139383890-42af8dc2-c923-4dc9-803d-153f3760306b.png">
Author
Owner

@Bertrand commented on GitHub (Nov 2, 2021):

Hello @NghiaTranUIT.

I've been running on this version for a few days now. No regression found for the moment 👍
And having the traffic well-separated by service is an awesome improvement. Thanks 👏 👏

<!-- gh-comment-id:957211908 --> @Bertrand commented on GitHub (Nov 2, 2021): Hello @NghiaTranUIT. I've been running on this version for a few days now. No regression found for the moment 👍 And having the traffic well-separated by service is an awesome improvement. Thanks :clap: :clap:
Author
Owner

@NghiaTranUIT commented on GitHub (Nov 2, 2021):

Awesome, glad to hear that 😄 🙌

<!-- gh-comment-id:957213545 --> @NghiaTranUIT commented on GitHub (Nov 2, 2021): Awesome, glad to hear that 😄 🙌
Sign in to join this conversation.
No milestone
No project
No assignees
1 participant
Notifications
Due date
The due date is invalid or out of range. Please use the format "yyyy-mm-dd".

No due date set.

Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference
starred/Proxyman#1044
No description provided.