-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 343
examples: adjust conformance server for auth tests #763
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Draft
maciej-kisiel
wants to merge
1
commit into
modelcontextprotocol:main
Choose a base branch
from
maciej-kisiel:server-auth
base: main
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
+146
−10
Draft
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Does any of these need the client-side code? I think only the server-side code is used.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
https://github.com/modelcontextprotocol/go-sdk/blob/main/oauthex/auth_meta.go has the tag and getting Authorization server metadata is expected by the conformance tests.
I would have a more general question: what's the logic whether something should live in
authvs inoauthex? My naive assumption would be thatauthsupports the authorization helpers implementing the spec (https://modelcontextprotocol.io/specification/2025-11-25/basic/authorization) andoauthexcould contain extensions, as proposed in the https://github.com/modelcontextprotocol/ext-auth repo. But currently, many of the basic primitives do live inoauthex. Could you provide me with more context?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
oauthex should contain only extensions to the OAuth 2.0 protocol, as described in various RFCs for that protocol. So for us that means Resource Server Metadata, Auth Server Metadata, and Dynamic Client Registration. The test is: could we just move this package under golang.org/x/oauth2 without bringing along anything MCP-specific? Because that is exactly what I'd like to happen someday.
Are we currently violating that?
I don't know why auth_meta.go has the tag. Please confirm that it contains no logic outside of the RFC. Then remove the tag.