Commit graph registry/internal/api/handlers/v0/auth/github_oidc.go
Author SHA1 Message Date
Radoslav Dimitrov
3f89fc2b1f
auth: bind GitHub OIDC token exchange to a per-deployment audience (#1229)
## What this does

The publisher CLI now derives the OIDC audience to request from the
`--registry` URL instead of using a fixed constant, and the server
validates the token's `aud` claim against a new per-deployment env var
(`MCP_REGISTRY_GITHUB_OIDC_AUDIENCE`).

Production sets this env var to
`https://registry.modelcontextprotocol.io` (and per-environment URL
elsewhere), so the deployment only accepts tokens that were requested
for it.

## Compatibility

This is a breaking change for older `mcp-publisher` binaries that still
request the legacy hardcoded audience. After this rolls to a deployment,
users on old `mcp-publisher` will see a clear `invalid audience:
expected …, got […]` error and need to upgrade. Users following the
documented `releases/latest` install pattern get the new binary
automatically.

## Test plan

- [ ] CI green
- [ ] Run a synthetic publish from a real GitHub Actions workflow
against staging after deploy
- [ ] Confirm an older `mcp-publisher` against the same staging deploy
returns the expected `invalid audience` error

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

---------

Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.7 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-04-29 20:27:26 -04:00
Radoslav Dimitrov
087d8085b7
Replace / with - for operation IDs (#660)
<!-- Provide a brief summary of your changes -->

## Motivation and Context
<!-- Why is this change needed? What problem does it solve? -->
Follow up from #658 addressing the feedback from @tadasant 

## How Has This Been Tested?
<!-- Have you tested this in a real application? Which scenarios were
tested? -->

## Breaking Changes
<!-- Will users need to update their code or configurations? -->

## Types of changes
<!-- What types of changes does your code introduce? Put an `x` in all
the boxes that apply: -->
- [ ] Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
- [ ] New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
- [ ] Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing
functionality to change)
- [ ] Documentation update

## Checklist
<!-- Go over all the following points, and put an `x` in all the boxes
that apply. -->
- [ ] I have read the [MCP
Documentation](https://modelcontextprotocol.io)
- [ ] My code follows the repository's style guidelines
- [ ] New and existing tests pass locally
- [ ] I have added appropriate error handling
- [ ] I have added or updated documentation as needed

## Additional context
<!-- Add any other context, implementation notes, or design decisions
-->

Signed-off-by: Radoslav Dimitrov <radoslav@stacklok.com>
2025-10-14 15:26:43 +03:00
Radoslav Dimitrov
1a7cd97099
Introduce v0.1 version of the API (#658)
<!-- Provide a brief summary of your changes -->

## Motivation and Context
<!-- Why is this change needed? What problem does it solve? -->
The following PR adds a new v0.1 API version. 

The goal is to mark v0.1 as a "freeze" point while keeping v0 as the
moving target for new features so integrators can start building on top
of something stable(r).

Details:
* This change is quite simple - we re-register the same handlers twice,
once as `v0` and once as `v0.1`
* Going forward, we'll keep v0.1 frozen while we add changes either on
top of both (non-breaking) or we'll have to branch if breaking changes
are necessary
* We all acknowledge this is not exactly best-practice, but it gives us
a way to gather feedback and allow clients to start integrating with the
API without breaking them (**note** this implies a follow up PR that
would branch the handlers used in v0.1).
* For integrators/clients: please provide your feedback - what works
well, what doesn't so we can take this into account going towards GA.

## How Has This Been Tested?
<!-- Have you tested this in a real application? Which scenarios were
tested? -->

## Breaking Changes
<!-- Will users need to update their code or configurations? -->
No, this just adds a new API version alongside the existing one.

## Types of changes
<!-- What types of changes does your code introduce? Put an `x` in all
the boxes that apply: -->
- [ ] Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
- [ ] New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
- [ ] Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing
functionality to change)
- [ ] Documentation update

## Checklist
<!-- Go over all the following points, and put an `x` in all the boxes
that apply. -->
- [ ] I have read the [MCP
Documentation](https://modelcontextprotocol.io)
- [ ] My code follows the repository's style guidelines
- [ ] New and existing tests pass locally
- [ ] I have added appropriate error handling
- [ ] I have added or updated documentation as needed

## Additional context
<!-- Add any other context, implementation notes, or design decisions
-->
Fixes: #649

Signed-off-by: Radoslav Dimitrov <radoslav@stacklok.com>
2025-10-14 11:04:48 +03:00
Radoslav Dimitrov
099a2d702e
Deduplicate server JSON structs between publisher and registry (#318)
<!-- Provide a brief summary of your changes -->

## Motivation and Context
<!-- Why is this change needed? What problem does it solve? -->

The following PR eliminates duplicate struct definitions by migrating
the publisher tool to use canonical types from pkg/model, creating a
single source of truth across the codebase. The publisher tool
previously had its own copies of structs that were duplicated, ie.
ServerJSON, Package, Repository, VersionDetail, EnvironmentVariable,
RuntimeArgument and a few others which was not optimal


**Changes in the PR:**
- Refactored the structs to single canonical types located at pkg/model
- Refactor the implementation to use/build canonical structures directly
  - Remove all duplicate definitions (5 structs eliminated)
- Publisher now uses model.ServerJSON, model.Package, model.Repository,
etc.
- Renamed some of the structs to better reflect their use case, i.e.
ServerJSON instead of ServerDetail
- Fixes an issue where the Remote property was missing from the previous
publisher copy of the Server

**Benefits:**
  - Single source of truth - Schema changes in one place
  - Type safety - Compiler catches mismatches
  - Enhanced validation - Field constraints and bson tags
  - Zero breaking changes - Same CLI interface and JSON output
  - Future-proof - New canonical fields automatically available

Supersedes: #217 and #240

## How Has This Been Tested?
<!-- Have you tested this in a real application? Which scenarios were
tested? -->

Locally

## Breaking Changes
<!-- Will users need to update their code or configurations? -->
No

## Types of changes
<!-- What types of changes does your code introduce? Put an `x` in all
the boxes that apply: -->
- [x] Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
- [ ] New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
- [ ] Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing
functionality to change)
- [ ] Documentation update

## Checklist
<!-- Go over all the following points, and put an `x` in all the boxes
that apply. -->
- [ ] I have read the [MCP
Documentation](https://modelcontextprotocol.io)
- [ ] My code follows the repository's style guidelines
- [ ] New and existing tests pass locally
- [ ] I have added appropriate error handling
- [ ] I have added or updated documentation as needed

## Additional context
<!-- Add any other context, implementation notes, or design decisions
-->

---------

Signed-off-by: Radoslav Dimitrov <radoslav@stacklok.com>
2025-08-28 14:58:15 +01:00
adam jones
12ab632d32
auth: Add GitHub OIDC auth (#278)
Adds support for auth'ing to the registry via [GitHub Actions
OIDC](https://docs.github.com/en/actions/concepts/security/openid-connect).

Fixes #271

## Motivation and Context

People will probably want to publish to the registry from CI
environments. DNS auth can work here fine
(https://github.com/modelcontextprotocol/registry/issues/270). But for
people who haven't set up DNS, the standard GitHub device flow won't
really work here. We could make this nice by supporting GitHub Actions
OIDC.

## How Has This Been Tested?

Tested locally with a real GitHub OIDC token from a personal repo.

## Breaking Changes

None

## Types of changes
<!-- What types of changes does your code introduce? Put an `x` in all
the boxes that apply: -->
- [ ] Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
- [x] New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
- [ ] Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing
functionality to change)
- [ ] Documentation update

## Checklist
<!-- Go over all the following points, and put an `x` in all the boxes
that apply. -->
- [x] I have read the [MCP
Documentation](https://modelcontextprotocol.io)
- [x] My code follows the repository's style guidelines
- [x] New and existing tests pass locally
- [x] I have added appropriate error handling
- [x] I have added or updated documentation as needed
2025-08-18 22:05:06 +01:00