Skip to content

Conversation

@pcarleton
Copy link
Member

No description provided.

@pkg-pr-new
Copy link

pkg-pr-new bot commented Nov 13, 2025

Open in StackBlitz

npm i https://pkg.pr.new/modelcontextprotocol/conformance/@modelcontextprotocol/conformance@28

commit: 030e97c

@pcarleton pcarleton force-pushed the pcarleton/auth-back-compat branch from 210c975 to 3f50f78 Compare November 14, 2025 15:31
pcarleton and others added 2 commits November 14, 2025 15:40
- Add index.test.ts to test all auth scenarios with auth-test.ts client
- Upgrade @modelcontextprotocol/sdk from 1.20.1 to 1.22.0
- All 5 auth scenarios now pass including auth/basic-metadata-var2

🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code)

Co-Authored-By: Claude <[email protected]>
],
"bin": {
"conformance": "dist/index.mjs"
"conformance": "dist/index.js"
Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

tsdown 0.15 creates index.js, 0.16 creates index.mjs, so since we're pinning to 0.15 for now (which seems to also be what pkg.pr.new uses), this needs to be .js

},
"dependencies": {
"@modelcontextprotocol/sdk": "^1.20.1",
"@modelcontextprotocol/sdk": "^1.22.0",
Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

this is to pick up the fix that makes these tests pass

@@ -1,28 +0,0 @@
import {
Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

this is in index.test.ts now

@pcarleton pcarleton changed the title [scenario] authz compatibility with 2025-03-26 spec [scenario] authz metadata discovery tests: compatibility with 2025-03-26 spec, prm root, and www-authenticate Nov 14, 2025
@pcarleton pcarleton requested a review from maxisbey November 14, 2025 16:22
Comment on lines +53 to +57
id: slug,
name: `Expected Check Missing: ${slug}`,
description: `Expected Check Missing: ${slug}`,
status: 'FAILURE',
timestamp: new Date().toISOString()
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

nit: should these point to a spec/RFC? either MCP or OAuth?

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Same with some of the other checks in this file

]);
});

// TODO: Add more negative tests here
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

👀

details: {
url: req.url,
path: req.path,
note: 'March spec behavior: no PRM available'
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

should we point to a specific link in the march spec?

@pcarleton
Copy link
Member Author

👍 I added some more spec references, and made them easier to reuse.

I don't include them in failure messages yet, but will make a helper for that in a follow up.

@pcarleton pcarleton merged commit f7c8c44 into main Nov 14, 2025
8 checks passed
@pcarleton pcarleton deleted the pcarleton/auth-back-compat branch November 14, 2025 18:36
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants