Thanks Camila for being a great Go consultant and advising on how to
tidy this up!
(I'm still a lil grumpy about some parts, but it's in much better shape
😄)
- Consolidated publisher extension validation into a single function.
- Updated the `Publish` and `EditServer` methods to directly use
`XPublisher` from the request.
- Removed outdated tests for publisher extension extraction and
validation.
- Introduced new validation functions for server details and remote URL
matching.
- Enhanced error handling for server name format and remote URL
validation.
- Updated existing tests to reflect changes in validation logic and
structure.
## Motivation and Context
<!-- Why is this change needed? What problem does it solve? -->
Things were starting to become a bit spaghetti-y after lots of small PRs
and contributions from many people. Camila and I went through and
figured out how we could make this a lot cleaner.
## How Has This Been Tested?
<!-- Have you tested this in a real application? Which scenarios were
tested? -->
Tested locally, plus all the integration and unit tests still pass.
## Breaking Changes
<!-- Will users need to update their code or configurations? -->
None
---------
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 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>
## Motivation and Context
- Add MCPB as a new registry_name option
- Add file_hashes field to package model for integrity verification
- Implement URL validation restricting MCPB packages to GitHub/GitLab
hosts
- Require SHA-256 hash for all MCPB packages
- Add example MCPB package in documentation
- Update schemas and OpenAPI specification
See issue #260
## How Has This Been Tested?
<!-- Have you tested this in a real application? Which scenarios were
tested? -->
## Breaking Changes
N/A, registry has not yet been launched
## 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)
- [ ] My code follows the repository's style guidelines
- [ ] New and existing tests pass locally
- [ ] I have added appropriate error handling
- [x] I have added or updated documentation as needed
---------
Co-authored-by: Adam Jones <adamj+git@anthropic.com>
<!-- Provide a brief summary of your changes -->
The changes are intended to create validators for all the free-form
fields. Please find the details of the validation of different field
below.
- Repository.Source: only github and gitlab is accepted.
- Repository.Url - It should be a valid github or gitlab URL. Created
regex for both.
- Server.Name - Max 200 char can be there. Reverse domain name
verification is part of another PR (not owned by me).
- Package.Name - Max 200 char and no spaces.
- Server.Description - Max 100 char.
- Remote.Url - It should be valid URL.
## Motivation and Context
<!-- Why is this change needed? What problem does it solve? -->
The motivation was to make the code clean and add base code for more
validator for different objects like Repository etc.
https://github.com/modelcontextprotocol/registry/issues/97
## How Has This Been Tested?
It's tested via UTs. Added UT's for all the validations.
## Breaking Changes
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. -->
- [x] I have read the [MCP
Documentation](https://modelcontextprotocol.io)
- [ ] 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
Co-authored-by: Avish Porwal <avishporwal@microsoft.com>
Co-authored-by: Adam Jones <adamj+git@anthropic.com>
