Option to call event.respondWith only if we have registered handler for this request

Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe. A lot of requests are completed with warning

Warning: captured a request without a matching request handler

because MSW calls event.respondWith almost for every request

Describe the solution you’d like It would be really great, if we could configure worker.start() with bypassUnhandledPath/bypassUnknownPath option

worker.start({ bypassUnknownPath: true })

Or with some bypass function, where I could write own match test

const handlers = [] // MSW handlers
const match = (path, url) => { /* ... */ }
worker.start({
  bypass: (req) => {
    const foundHandler = handlers.find((handler) => match(handler.info.path, req.url));
    return !foundHandler;
  },
});

Describe alternatives you’ve considered I’ve added this code to fetch listener in mockServiceWorker.js

// Bypass static files (.js/css/woff2/etc).
if (new URL(request.url).pathname.match(/\.(.*)$/)) {
  return;
}

So at least now I ignore static files. But this is not enough for me.

Additional context I’m not afraid about warnings, I can disable them. In fact I’m afraid of Chrome’s “network” tab, where I see a lot of XHR requests intercepted with MSW. But truly these request are css/js/woff2/html/..etc. And I would like to not intercept them with MSW at all.

[evisong]

But I can’t stand this mess in Network tab 😃

Just FYI, in Chrome Devtools, Network tab, you may add -is:service-worker-initiated -is:service-worker-intercepted to filter out service worker requests. Much cleaner after that.

[kettanaito]

A great find regarding the difference in the x-msw-bypass header! I’ve opened an issue about it https://github.com/mswjs/msw/issues/1085. @crutch12, could you be interested in helping us fix it? I’ll assist you during the code review and make sure we cover this behavior difference. Thanks.