<!-- 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>
<!-- 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>
<!-- Provide a brief summary of your changes -->
## Motivation and Context
Currently the `dns` and `http` based auth flows share code well in the
publisher tool. However there is a lot of duplication in the auth
endpoint. This on it's own is not a problem but it does make
enhancements to the proof record (the `v=MCPv1; ...` string) harder to
keep in sync.
This PR adds a `common.go` file to share logic between the two.
This supports work I am prototyping for
https://github.com/modelcontextprotocol/registry/issues/482.
## How Has This Been Tested?
Added new test cases for the permissions. Ran them before and after the
refactoring to ensure no behavior change.
Ran existing UTs.
Ran the integration tests.
Manually exercised the flows locally.
## 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
- [ ] I have added or updated documentation as needed
## Additional context
<!-- Add any other context, implementation notes, or design decisions
-->
## Motivation and Context
Replace server-only `http.MaxBytesReader(nil, ...)` with
`io.LimitReader` to cap the fetched body to 4KB in key fetcher. This
avoids passing a `nil` ResponseWriter and aligns with Go idioms. If more
than 4KB is received, return a clear error. Previously `MaxBytesReader`
returned a misleading `http: request body too large` error, which is
server-oriented. With this change the error becomes `HTTP auth key
response too large`.
## How Has This Been Tested?
<!-- Have you tested this in a real application? Which scenarios were
tested? -->
Add tests covering success, oversized bodies, connection failure,
non-200 status, and read failures. This covers almost all lines of
`FetchKey` method of `DefaultHTTPKeyFetcher`. For tests, I also added a
new initialiser `NewDefaultHTTPKeyFetcherWithClient` so that the HTTP
client could be modified for test use.
Tests use `httptest.NewTLSServer` plus a helper to construct a client
pinned to the test server.
`auth` package test coverage increased from 56.8% to 59.3%.
## Breaking Changes
<!-- Will users need to update their code or configurations? -->
None.
## 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. -->
- [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
- [ ] I have added or updated documentation as needed
## Additional context
<!-- Add any other context, implementation notes, or design decisions
-->
Signed-off-by: Ville Vesilehto <ville@vesilehto.fi>
<!-- 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>
Add HTTP-based authentication to prove domain ownership, similar to
https://github.com/modelcontextprotocol/registry/pull/238's DNS
authentication but using HTTPS well-known URIs instead of DNS TXT
records.
Fixes#280
## Motivation and Context
Some organizations don't have easy access to DNS records, but can easily
deploy web assets. They would therefore prefer to be able to complete a
HTTP challenge rather than a DNS one to authenticate to the registry.
This would in some way mirror ACME challenges: where you can do a DNS-01
or a HTTP-01 challenge.
## How Has This Been Tested?
- Tested locally by stubbing out the HTTP getter
- Added unit tests
## 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
## Additional context
I concern I had when building this that it might expose us to SSRF
attacks.
I think on reflection this is not a significant problem:
- We only GET a fixed file `.well-known/mcp-registry-auth` (redirects
disallowed) after sanitizing the domain, and then also don't expose the
response to the user. This means the user shouldn't be able to hit
anything very interesting.
- The information they might get is what domains/servers exist in the
network. Our infrastructure is already all open-source, so attackers
aren't getting any additional real info by prodding at the environment
this way.
