-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 3.6k
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
feat: clean up public APIs #12075
Draft
balazsorban44
wants to merge
14
commits into
main
Choose a base branch
from
feat/api-cleanups
base: main
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
Draft
feat: clean up public APIs #12075
Conversation
This file contains 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
The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for Git ↗︎
2 Skipped Deployments
|
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #12075 +/- ##
===========================================
+ Coverage 39.22% 67.95% +28.73%
===========================================
Files 191 130 -61
Lines 29928 7227 -22701
Branches 1297 663 -634
===========================================
- Hits 11738 4911 -6827
+ Misses 18190 2316 -15874 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
☕️ Reasoning
Over time, I've come to realize that some people might think Auth.js APIs are complicated because of poor naming/conventions. This PR aims to address some of these flows by improving the public-facing APIs in a way that better defined the intent. It ships some default behavior changes to address common issues.
Currently, we only have a
debug: boolean
option. This means that warnings will spam the console by default. Introducing alogLevel: "verbose" | "warn" | "error" | "silent"
option, by"error"
being the new default should result in less noise (eg. warnings will be off by default from now on), but the flexibility to provide more insights into what's happening internally remains. If you wish to disable all logs, the newsilent
option will silence all logs by default. You can still use thelogger
option to add your custom logger methods though.This name was chosen poorly. Let me explain. By default, Auth.js does not require a database to operate. This is because we want the entry level be low, but still provide the basic auth functionality. For this reason, Auth.js sessions are persisted in a cookie. However, to protect the session information, we only want the Auth.js backend to be able to read the cookies' contents. We are utilizing JWTs for this purpose. Whenever a session is created or modified, the cookie content is decrypted/verified, using the Auth.js secret (AUTH_SECRET) as the seed for the encryption key. This way, we always know if the content was actually issued by us. BUT. There is absolutely no reason for anyone to rely on JWTs for this purpose. To Better reflect this, the new preferred APIs to seal/unseal the session contents will be renamed from
jwt: {encode() {}, decode() {}}
tosession: {seal() {}, unseal() {}}
to reflect this. Note, that we will continue using an encrypted JWT as the sealing method, it's just the API name that changes.In follow-up PRs, I plan to pull the APIs for database and JWT sessions even closer. (Think CookieAdapter, with the same structured data a database providers, but without needing to set up an actual database. The caveat of course: this data won't persist across login/logouts.)
I am adding more inline documentation where I can, better explaining our choices to be more transparent and giving usage examples. This will also be lifted into the https://authjs.dev documentation eventually.
🧢 Checklist
🎫 Affected issues
📌 Resources