Conformance plan for Interceptor
Nobody has claimed this yet.
Assessment
- Difficulty
- 5/5
- Estimated time
- Over a week
- Newbie friendliness
- 25/100
- Issue type
- Feature
- Clarity
- Needs clarification
- Activity status
- Quiet
- Domain
- testing-qa
Research direction
Start by reviewing the linked modelcontextprotocol/conformance project and the existing Interceptor SDK examples, test fixtures, and tests. Define a conformance strategy and guidance for SDK support, then identify how interoperability can be validated across the currently available SDKs; done means the direction is agreed and actionable.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Description
We currently have multiple Interceptor SDKs implementing the spec but disagreeing slightly on protocol details. These SDKs all have examples, test fixtures, and tests which exercise the protocol via the SDK, which prove that the SDK works, but not that it implements the protocol or would interoperate with a solution using a different SDK.
We should have a conformance strategy for Interceptors that is consistent with https://github.com/modelcontextprotocol/conformance - at least in part because if Interceptors moves into the core spec at some point, the conformance testing will move there.
Once we have a solid direction, the SDKs will need to be updated to support conformance and guidance will need to be produced for any new SDKs so they implement conformance support properly.
Lastly, while the core conformance effort explicitly chose not to matrix test clients and servers across SDKs (in favor of deterministic results with clear responsibility), I think it might be good with these early Interceptor SDKs (while there are still only a few of them) to matrix tests them just to prove to ourselves that they interoperate and our conformance testing isn't missing anything.
Note: This issue came up in Interceptors WG meeting and I'm documenting it here just so we don't lose track of it.
- Dominant language
- C#
- Stars
- 23
- Forks
- 13
- PR merge metrics
- No merged PRs in 30d
Getting set up
- No Dockerfile or Docker Compose file
- No pull request template
- Read the contributing guide
First steps
- Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
- Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
- Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
- Open a pull request that references the issue number.
More from modelcontextprotocol/experimental-ext-interceptors
-
Python SDK: support `phase="both"` as decorator sugarMay be free again @olaservo claimed this 65 days ago, and no pull request is open. Openenhancement
modelcontextprotocol/experimental-ext-interceptors#37 · 1 assignee ·
-
Difficulty 4/5 3-5 days Newbie friendliness 42/100
modelcontextprotocol/experimental-ext-interceptors#29 · 1 comment ·
-
enhancement
Difficulty 4/5 3-5 days Newbie friendliness 48/100
-
bug
Difficulty 5/5 Over a week Newbie friendliness 35/100
All issues in modelcontextprotocol/experimental-ext-interceptors
Similar issues
-
Difficulty 2/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 85/100
Maintainers usually reply within 1 day
-
dette technique priorité: basse zone: service
Difficulty 2/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 68/100
damiensabau/nexus-lobby#25 ·
-
Difficulty 2/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 78/100
sebastienros/jint#4282 ·
Maintainers usually reply within 1 day
-
Difficulty 1/5 Under an hour Newbie friendliness 76/100
pyrevitlabs/pyRevit#3792 ·
Maintainers usually reply within 1 day
-
clawsweeper:needs-product-decision clawsweeper:needs-security-review clawsweeper:no-new-fix-pr clawsweeper:source-repro impact:security impact:ux-friction issue-rating: 🦞 diamond lobster P2
Difficulty 2/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 75/100
openclaw/openclaw-windows-node#1763 · 1 comment · 1 reaction ·
Maintainers usually reply within 1 day