jamesnetherton commented on issue #9342: URL: https://github.com/apache/camel-quarkus/issues/9342#issuecomment-6217175576
> Having itests for each transports I'm not sure if it's overkill or not? WDYT? We could perhaps have some minimal coverage for popular transports like stdio & http. > A CVE related to quarkus-mcp-server-core would make us bound to analyze impact in cq while probably a quarkus-mcp-server-* transport CVE would not ? Yes, we'd have to asses the impact. But my point was *any* CVE in quarkus-mcp-server would not be our responsibility to fix and patch. We'd eventually bump to a patched version in this project, but the actual version that users see, comes from the Quarkus Platform. i.e. we'll get patches for 'free' by way of a quarkus-mcp-server version bump in the platform. -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
