-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 3
[scenario] authz metadata discovery tests: compatibility with 2025-03-26 spec, prm root, and www-authenticate #28
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Conversation
commit: |
210c975 to
3f50f78
Compare
- 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" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
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", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
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 { | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
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
| id: slug, | ||
| name: `Expected Check Missing: ${slug}`, | ||
| description: `Expected Check Missing: ${slug}`, | ||
| status: 'FAILURE', | ||
| timestamp: new Date().toISOString() |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
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?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
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 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
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' |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
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?
|
👍 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. |
No description provided.