fix: fix missing seed.json on startup by renaming file

[chenmingyong0423]

Renamed data/seed_2025_05_16.json to data/seed.json and updated Dockerfile

Motivation and Context

When cloning the repository and building the project using:

go build ./cmd/registry
.\\registry.exe

the application fails to start because the default seed file path (data/seed.json) does not exist in the repo:

Failed to read seed file: failed to read file: open data/seed.json: The system cannot find the file specified.

How Has This Been Tested?

go build ./cmd/registry
.\\registry.exe // ./registry

Breaking Changes

None

Types of changes

• [x] Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
• [ ] New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
• [ ] Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to change)
• [ ] Documentation update

Checklist

• [x] I have read the MCP Documentation
• [x] My code follows the repository's style guidelines
• [x] New and existing tests pass locally
• [ ] I have added appropriate error handling
• [ ] I have added or updated documentation as needed

Additional context

[yshngg]

Hi @chenmingyong0423 , why not simply rename the seed_2025_05_16.json file to seed.json?

[chenmingyong0423]

@yshngg The current seed file is named seed_2025_05_16.json, and I wasn’t sure if there’s a specific versioning or naming convention behind it. To avoid unintentionally breaking that design decision, I chose to update the config and Docker setup to match the existing file rather than renaming it to seed.json.

[yshngg]

@chenmingyong0423 I understand your point, but I think this PR might reduce flexibility. The current seed file is named seed_2025_05_16.json. If updates are made later and a new file like seed_2025_05_26.json is created, we would need to update the default path to import seed file again.

If we don't create new seed files, what's the difference between filenames seed_2025_05_16.json and seed.json?

[chenmingyong0423]

@yshngg I actually agree that renaming seed_2025_05_16.json to seed.json would be a cleaner and simpler solution. However, I'm not sure if there was any specific reason or versioning intent behind the original filename. If not, standardizing it as seed.json makes perfect sense. Looking forward to hearing the maintainers’ thoughts.

[chenmingyong0423]

@yshngg I'd like to check — are you the main reviewer or maintainer of this project? If so, I’m happy to adjust the PR based on your suggestions.

[chenmingyong0423]

@yshngg It looks like you're the main reviewer or maintainer — I’ve updated the changes according to your suggestions. Thanks for the input!

[yshngg]

@yshngg I'd like to check — are you the main reviewer or maintainer of this project? If so, I’m happy to adjust the PR based on your suggestions.

Oops, sorry for the confusion — I'm just interested in the project and not a reviewer or maintainer.

[chenmingyong0423]

@yshngg I'd like to check — are you the main reviewer or maintainer of this project? If so, I’m happy to adjust the PR based on your suggestions.

Oops, sorry for the confusion — I'm just interested in the project and not a reviewer or maintainer.

Alright!

[mukteshkrmishra]

This is actually nice.

[domdomegg]

// rebasing on top of main...

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

:white_check_mark: All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.

:loudspeaker: Thoughts on this report? Let us know!