OAuth client scope handling breaks on comma-separated scope strings
Nobody has claimed this yet.
Assessment
- Difficulty
- 2/5
- Estimated time
- 1-3 hours
- Newbie friendliness
- 75/100
- Issue type
- Bug
- Clarity
- Clearly specified
- Activity status
- Active
- Tech stack
- python
- Domain
- api, authentication, backend
Research direction
Look for the union_scopes function and offline_access membership checks in the OAuth client code. The fix involves creating a parse_scopes helper that splits on both spaces and commas. Check the existing tests for scope handling to understand the expected behavior, then write parametrized tests for the new helper. The PR description mentions a fix is already prepared in a fork, so review that implementation as a reference.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Description
Initial Checks
- I confirm that I'm using the newest release of my line (verified on
mainand 2.2.0) - I confirm that I searched for my issue in the issues before opening this one (searched "comma scope", "scope separator")
Release line
v2 (v1 shares the code)
Description
RFC 6749 §3.3 separates scopes with spaces, but real-world authorization servers (e.g. Linear) return comma-separated scope values in token responses and WWW-Authenticate challenges. union_scopes and the offline_access membership checks split on whitespace only, so a comma-separated grant is treated as one opaque scope: the SEP-2350 step-up union stops deduplicating (scopes accumulate as read,write read write) and offline_access/prompt=consent handling misfires.
We carry a fix in Perplexity's fork and have it rebased onto current main: a parse_scopes helper accepting both separators, used in union_scopes and the offline_access membership checks, with parametrized tests. Please assign so the PR stays open.
🤖 Generated with Claude Code
- Dominant language
- Python
- Stars
- 24.3k
- Forks
- 4k
- Avg merge
- 1d 11h
- Merged PRs (30d)
- 30
Contributor 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/python-sdk
-
v1 v2
Difficulty 2/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 85/100
modelcontextprotocol/python-sdk#3546 · 5 comments ·
-
v1 v2
Difficulty 2/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 76/100
modelcontextprotocol/python-sdk#3545 · 1 comment ·
-
v1 v2
Difficulty 1/5 Under an hour Newbie friendliness 91/100
modelcontextprotocol/python-sdk#3508 · 2 comments ·
-
Difficulty 2/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 64/100
modelcontextprotocol/python-sdk#3504 ·
-
v1 v2
Difficulty 2/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 82/100
modelcontextprotocol/python-sdk#3492 · 1 comment ·
All issues in modelcontextprotocol/python-sdk
Similar issues
-
essnmx good first issue
Difficulty 1/5 Under an hour Newbie friendliness 95/100
-
[Feature] 奇物选择添加优先级 Open
Difficulty 2/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 65/100
syfoud/Simulated_Scepter#174 ·
-
Difficulty 2/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 75/100
Giskard-AI/giskard-oss#2840 · 1 comment ·
-
A claim comment carrying the issue number is silently declined while the workflow reports success Openarea: repo bug perceived difficulty: 2
Difficulty 2/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 70/100
-
Difficulty 2/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 75/100
yeti-platform/yeti#1380 ·