-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 12
feat: add MCP Connection editor definition #602
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
Merged
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
8 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
5e2181e
feat: add MCP Connection editor definition
DaveHanns a86a54e
feat: mcp connection input schema V2
DaveHanns 0bed3df
feat: introduce component definition class
DaveHanns cfcf166
feat: add subschema versions of mcp connection schema
DaveHanns c19d067
feat: introduce mcpConnection resource type
DaveHanns 0dbf247
feat: implementation of version 3 of the input schema for mcp connectors
DaveHanns 85f00db
feat: adjust tests
DaveHanns cd53e90
feat: adjust tests
DaveHanns 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
Large diffs are not rendered by default.
Oops, something went wrong.
Large diffs are not rendered by default.
Oops, something went wrong.
Large diffs are not rendered by default.
Oops, something went wrong.
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.
I have introduce new
Component:prefix for reusable schemas for properties that does not really fit theUtils:classification (whereerrorMessagefits, butmcpPropertynot so much).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.
Maybe
Utils:wasn't the greatest choice, but it's simply used for everything else then fields and subfields definitions => utility definitions.I think introducing new "category" just for this and applying the exact logic as for
Utilsis not necessary.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.
I'm not really opposed to using
Utils:here. I think however, that it might be useful to have theComponent:as withUtils:we would have both utility definitions and reusable sub-definitions semantically covered.No hard opinion here tho.