<!-- 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
<!-- Why is this change needed? What problem does it solve? -->
The following PR:
* Enforces schema validation on the API level (requests without schema
or older schema will fail)
* Updates the unit tests and examples to match that
## 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? -->
**Note this can be considered breaking if clients have not included it
before.**
## 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>
## Summary
- Applied `gofmt -s -w` across the entire codebase to ensure consistent
Go formatting
- This will trigger a deployment with minimal code changes
## Test plan
- [x] Pre-commit hooks pass
- [x] No functional changes, formatting only
🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code)
Co-authored-by: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com>
- Add workflow_dispatch to deploy.yml for manual deployment triggers
- Document that releases don't auto-deploy to production
- Add instructions for deploying releases to production
- Add verification steps for deployment
🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code)
Co-Authored-By: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com>
<!-- Provide a brief summary of your changes -->
## Motivation and Context
<!-- Why is this change needed? What problem does it solve? -->
The follow PR removes the in-memory database option from the registry.
We had a chat about this with @domdomegg and although it is supposed to
be convenient, it isn't that useful in reality. We want to test and
develop the registry in a setup that is closer to the environment it is
supposed to be run. One of the main reasons are:
* We don't use it anywhere else besides unit testing and potentially
local development. Instead we should use postgresql for reliable results
(in-memory was actually giving false positive results)
* We have to keep maintaining it and make sure it mimics the behaviour
we have for postgresql which is not yielding a lot of value
## How Has This Been Tested?
<!-- Have you tested this in a real application? Which scenarios were
tested? -->
Yes, I've updated the test unit make target to run in the postgresql
environment and now we can see the race condition issue happening.
## 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: -->
- [ ] 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>
## Summary
Simplified the schema structure by:
- Replacing `version_detail.version` with direct `version` field
- Removing unused `release_date` field from seed data
- Updating all API types, models, and tests to match new structure
- Maintaining backwards compatibility in API responses
This change makes the schema more intuitive and reduces nesting depth.
## Summary
Implements mandatory file hash validation for MCPB (MCP Bundle) packages
to ensure file integrity and security.
## Changes
- **Validator enforcement**: MCPB packages now require `file_sha256`
field at publish time
- **Test coverage**: Updated all MCPB test cases to include valid
SHA-256 hashes
- **Documentation**: Updated publisher guide and schema to reflect hash
requirement
- **Error handling**: Clear error message when hash is missing
## Security Impact
This ensures the complete security workflow for MCPB packages:
1. Authors generate and provide SHA-256 hashes when publishing
2. Registry validates hash is present (but doesn't verify content)
3. MCP clients validate hash matches downloaded file before installation
Fixes#351
<!-- 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 `transport` type used in Package and Remotes
* Added `docker` to the `runtime_hint` examples
* Added support for templated URLs. It is available for streamable-http
and sse transports for Packages. I didn't thought of reasons to have
this for Remotes, but we can enable it if needed.
* Added validation for templated URLs so we can ensure all referenced
placeholder variables are available.
* For streamable-http and SSE transport types the URL is now a required
property
* Updated the publisher init command to reflect these changes
* Updated the seed.json file
* Added unit tests for the transport type related changes
* Updated the server.json schema and the external pkg structs to reflect
the new transport type
* Updated the examples
Thanks to @kkkarthik for spotting it! 🙏
## How Has This Been Tested?
<!-- Have you tested this in a real application? Which scenarios were
tested? -->
Ran the tests locally
## Breaking Changes
<!-- Will users need to update their code or configurations? -->
Yes
## 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)
- [x] 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>
Fixes#96
## Motivation and Context
See #96
## How Has This Been Tested?
Has some unit and integration tests, still needs proper testing of the
different registry types
## Breaking Changes
Yes, new package uploads will need extra verification
## 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)
- [x] Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing
functionality to change)
- [ ] Documentation update
