Commit graph registry/internal/api/handlers/v0/publish_registry_validation_test.go
Author SHA1 Message Date
adam jones
8f5e17d0fe
Enforce and document file hash requirement for MCPB packages (#368)
## 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
2025-09-08 11:38:25 -07:00
Radoslav Dimitrov
e0e51eae37
Reflect the latest registry changes in openapi.yaml (#345)
<!-- 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>
2025-09-05 21:07:08 +01:00
adam jones
694a4d8879
Add registry validators (#350)
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
2025-09-04 22:45:59 +01:00