During programming a function, that replaces a wget call, I noticed, that something is wrong with urllibs proxy handling. I usually use the scheme "http_proxy= wget -N -nd URL" when I need to bypass the proxy. Hence I was pretty confused, that this doesn't work with python(3). Creating an empty ProxyHandler isn't the real Mc Coy either. Diving into the issue, I found getproxies_environment, but couldn't make much sense out of its behavior, up until I noticed, thatmy OS (openSUSE ) creates both variants of environment variables behind the scenes: uppercase and lowercase. Consequence: python3 needs the scheme "http_proxy= HTTP_PROXY= python3 ..."Since I, like everyone else, prefer gentle tones over the loud, and want to spare this surprise for others in the future, I propose the attached patch.Process environment variables in two passes, first uppercase, then lowercase, allowing an empty lowercase value to overrule any uppercase value.Please consider applying this.

I think this should be applied as a bug fix to 2.7 and 3.5 as well. What do you think? Lowercase is the normal way to use these variables.I left some comments on the code review.A similar bug seems to exist for the “no_proxy” variable. Also, it would be nice to add a test case for this.

Hi Hans-Peter,I agree with Martin's comments and suggestion.If I understand the suggestion correctly, the only change will be a documentation change. Isn't it? Because getproxies_environment() in it's current form already fetches the lower_case proxy which you want to highlight that is a winner in case there are two environment variables with different cases.Thanks!

It’s not just documentation, it is a real bug. If you runhttp_proxy="" HTTP_PROXY=http://bad-proxy python . . .the empty value of lowercase “http_proxy” should have priority over the other one. At the moment it depends on the order of os.environ.items(), which I understand is random.

Hi Martin, hi Senthil,thanks for the valuable comments. Will incorporate your suggestions later today.Yes, Martin, it's a bug, and should be fixed for 2.7 and 3.5 as well, but I was unsure, if I get some feedback at all... Hence, this is a very nice experience for me. I'm out for jogging now,Pete

Hi Martin, hi Senthil,please find a new patch attached, that incorporates your suggestions. * added a comment to get_proxies doc in urllib.rst * documented and fixed the mixed case scheme  * added a note to proxy_bypass_environment, that behaves slightly    different in this respectYes, mixed case situations are not handled in proxy_bypass_environment,just lowercase and uppercase, while lowercase is preferred correctly.I think, that the mixed case situation is pathologic enough and deserves to be ignored here. BTW, while looking at the code, I noticed, that most docstrings of the callers of proxy_bypass_environment are wrong: they say, that the proxies dict is returned, but they return the value of proxy_bypass_environment(), not get_proxies().A follow up patch could do this in order to clean up this mess:since there's always a call to get_proxies preceding the call to proxy_bypass_environment, we could add a second argument to the latter, passing in the proxy dict, that is thrown away at the moment. Since that carries a 'no' key already, if it exists, using it here would fix this ambiguity. While at it, fix up the affected docstrings.What do you think about the attached patch and the last paragraph?

The second patch looks reasonable (I left one minor grammar comment).About getproxies_environment(), I meant that if you set no_proxy="", it may be ignored if NO_PROXY=. . . is also set. E.g. if you already have these set:http_proxy=http://proxyno_proxy=example.netNO_PROXY=example.netyou should be able to override no_proxy="" to cancel bypassing for example.net.I agree the proxy_bypass() docstring looks wrong. If you want to write a patch to fix that, or to make the code more efficient or easier to understand, that would be good.

Here we go:v3 fixes following issues: * prefer lowercase proxy environment settings, if multiple (disagreeing) settings are specified with differing case schemes (e.g. HTTP_PROXY vs. http_proxy) * an empty proxy variable value resets the related setting correctly  * apply this logic to no_proxy, too * document this behaviour  * fix misleading docstrings related to proxy_bypass

Here's the finalized version of this patch, including unit tests.

v5: don't require the proxies argument in proxy_bypass_environment()

I found two bugs; see the comments.In Python 2, it looks like the proxy_bypass_etc() functions are defined in urllib and imported into urllib2, so it makes sense to include the tests in test_urllib rather than test_urllib2.Technically I think proxy_bypass_environment() is meant to be an internal function, but it is safer to keep the changes to in minimal for bug fixes. So I think the optional proxies parameter should be okay.

* blatant error fixed* one test case added

> In Python 2, it looks like the proxy_bypass_etc() functions are defined> in urllib and imported into urllib2, so it makes sense to include the> tests in test_urllib rather than test_urllib2.The tests are in test_urllib. test_urllib2 is testing proxy behaviour on a higher level, so I think, they're in the correct module, aren't they?

Yes that was my rambling way of saying that I had checked to see if they were in the right place, and reporting that it was all okay :)New patch seems okay to me.

v7: - reorder test code in order to improve edibility

V7 looks good to me

New changeset49b975122022 by Senthil Kumaran in branch '3.5':Issue#26804: urllib.request will prefer lower_case proxy environment variableshttps://hg.python.org/cpython/rev/49b975122022New changeset316593f5bf73 by Senthil Kumaran in branch 'default':merge 3.5https://hg.python.org/cpython/rev/316593f5bf73

New changesetc502deb19cb0 by Senthil Kumaran in branch '2.7':backport fix for Issue#26804.https://hg.python.org/cpython/rev/c502deb19cb0

This is fixed in all versions of Python.Thank you for your contribution, Hans-Peter Jansen.

In a couple of systems, I have to stick with 3.4. Is there a chance to have this patch in 3.4 as well, if a new release 3.4 is made?

Unfortunately no. 3.4 is only in security fixes mode and this doesn't qualify as a security fix. Usually the bug fixes and feature additions are incentives for developers to upgrade their python codebase.