added a test for the non-default path registration

[malladinagarjuna2]

What does this PR do?

Fixes #1178
added a test for the mcpserver registration via a nondefault spec.path
workflow for this is
1.register through the non default spec.path
2.checks whether mcpserver registration becomes ready
3.verifying whether the tools are accessible
4. calling the tool

Pre-review checklist

Before requesting review from a maintainer, confirm you have read CONTRIBUTING.md and:

• Checked the CodeRabbit walkthrough for "Possibly related issues" and confirmed the PR uses Fixes or Closes syntax for any it addresses
• Checked the CodeRabbit walkthrough for "Possibly related PRs" and confirmed this PR is not a duplicate
• Read, understood, and addressed or dismissed (with a reason) all CodeRabbit comments
• All CI checks pass, or failures have been investigated and explained below
• Ran the agent-skills:review skill (from https://github.com/addyosmani/agent-skills) and addressed all valid recommendations

[github-actions]

Thanks for the contribution, @malladinagarjuna2! You currently have other non-draft PR(s) open:

• replace synchronous polling with fire and forget  #979
• condition for jwt hs256 extending till 32 bytes #1102

To help us review and merge changes as efficiently as possible, we ask contributors to focus on one PR at a time. Activity on this project can be high, and maintainers have other priorities outside the project, so having a single active PR helps everyone get changes landed faster.

Please convert this PR to draft while your other PR(s) are in review. Once they are merged or closed, mark this one as ready for review and we will take a look.

Note

This is an experimental process and may change or need manual intervention while we trial it.

[coderabbitai]

Warning

Review limit reached

@malladinagarjuna2, we couldn't start this review because you've reached your PR review rate limit.

More reviews will be available in 59 minutes and 11 seconds. Learn how PR review limits work.

Your organization has used up its prepaid credits, and credit purchases are no longer available. Enable the review add-on in the billing tab to keep reviews running — you're only billed for reviews past your plan's rate limits ($0.25/file).

⌛ How to resolve this issue?

After more reviews become available, a review can be triggered using the @coderabbitai review command as a PR comment. Alternatively, push new commits to this PR.

To avoid repeated limits, reduce automatic review volume by pausing incremental auto-reviews earlier, using label-based review opt-in, excluding WIP or generated PR titles, or requesting reviews manually when the PR is ready. If your team needs uninterrupted high-volume reviews, an organization admin can enable usage-based credits.

🚦 How do rate limits work?

CodeRabbit enforces per-developer PR review limits for each organization. Most developers receive the normal plan refill rate.

For paid Pro and Pro+ PR reviews, CodeRabbit uses adaptive limits for sustained high-volume activity. When a developer's recent PR review activity reaches the 95th percentile or higher among CodeRabbit users, the refill rate gradually slows as usage increases. The highest same-day bursts are limited more strictly.

Please see our Fair Usage Limits Policy for further information.

ℹ️ Review info

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: Path: .coderabbit.yaml

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro

Run ID: 7f96fb51-abbe-49d7-ac7d-fdbf97f96be0

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between b8dd4c2 and 2995fb2.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)

• tests/e2e/happy_path_test.go

✨ Finishing Touches

🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)

• Create PR with unit tests

---

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands and usage tips.}

[malladinagarjuna2]

hey @david-martin can you please review this pr

[malladinagarjuna2]

hey @david-martin could you please review my pr

[Aman-Cool]

@malladinagarjuna2, Nice work.., lines up exactly with #1178, and I like that it actually proves the path is honored rather than just checking a server replied: since custom-path-server only serves MCP at /v1/special/mcp (the / route is plain text), the tools would never show up if the broker fell back to /mcp — so a green test is real evidence the path's wired through. Names all check out too (service, prefix, path_info -> custompath_path_info).

One small optional thing: the final tools/call asserts non-empty content, which matches the issue's "confirm tools/call succeeds" — but since path_info returns "This server is configured at /v1/special/mcp", you could assert the content contains /v1/special/mcp and the "verify the broker connected via the non-default path" intent becomes airtight. But again its optional the fix looks good anyways...

[Aman-Cool]

Also please avoid pinging the members repeatedly...your work would be reviewed eventually🙂

[malladinagarjuna2]

hey @Aman-Cool thanks for the review!

Also please avoid pinging the members repeatedly...your work would be reviewed eventually🙂

will keep in mind about it