Skip to content

Polish McpServerAutoConfiguration #4378

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Polish McpServerAutoConfiguration #4378

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
8 changes: 3 additions & 5 deletions ...va/org/springframework/ai/mcp/server/common/autoconfigure/McpServerAutoConfiguration.java
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -108,7 +108,7 @@ public McpSyncServer mcpSyncServer(McpServerTransportProviderBase transportProvi
ObjectProvider<List<SyncResourceSpecification>> resources,
ObjectProvider<List<SyncPromptSpecification>> prompts,
ObjectProvider<List<SyncCompletionSpecification>> completions,
ObjectProvider<BiConsumer<McpSyncServerExchange, List<McpSchema.Root>>> rootsChangeConsumers,
ObjectProvider<BiConsumer<McpSyncServerExchange, List<McpSchema.Root>>> rootsChangeConsumer,
Environment environment) {

McpSchema.Implementation serverInfo = new Implementation(serverProperties.getName(),
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -179,10 +179,8 @@ public McpSyncServer mcpSyncServer(McpServerTransportProviderBase transportProvi
}
}

rootsChangeConsumers.ifAvailable(consumer -> {
BiConsumer<McpSyncServerExchange, List<McpSchema.Root>> syncConsumer = (exchange, roots) -> consumer
.accept(exchange, roots);
serverBuilder.rootsChangeHandler(syncConsumer);
rootsChangeConsumer.ifAvailable(consumer -> {
serverBuilder.rootsChangeHandler(consumer);
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@quaff Thanks for the PR. I believe this is safer to do as the consumer type would always be BiConsumer<McpSyncServerExchange, List<McpSchema.Root>>. But, I want to double check with why it was done this way at first place. @tzolov what's your thoughts on this?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think it's copied from mcpAsyncServer method which cannot use it directly.

logger.info("Registered roots change consumer");
});

Expand Down