Conversation
commit: |
pcarleton
force-pushed
the
pcarleton/auth-back-compat
branch
from
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 <noreply@anthropic.com>
| ], | ||
| "bin": { | ||
| "conformance": "dist/index.mjs" | ||
| "conformance": "dist/index.js" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
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.
this is to pick up the fix that makes these tests pass
| @@ -1,28 +0,0 @@ | |||
| import { | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
this is in index.test.ts now
pcarleton
changed the title
| 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.
nit: should these point to a spec/RFC? either MCP or OAuth?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Same with some of the other checks in this file
| ]); | ||
| }); | ||
|
|
||
| // TODO: Add more negative tests here |
| details: { | ||
| url: req.url, | ||
| path: req.path, | ||
| note: 'March spec behavior: no PRM available' |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
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. |
2 participants
No description provided.