feat: Add third-party auth support #999
Conversation
dshukertjr
requested review from
DanMossa,
bdlukaa and
Vinzent03
and removed request for
DanMossa,
bdlukaa and
Vinzent03
| @@ -75,6 +75,7 @@ class Supabase { | |||
| PostgrestClientOptions postgrestOptions = const PostgrestClientOptions(), | |||
| StorageClientOptions storageOptions = const StorageClientOptions(), | |||
| FlutterAuthClientOptions authOptions = const FlutterAuthClientOptions(), | |||
| Future<String> Function()? accessToken, | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Maybe create a typedef for this?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks for the feedback! I know this is highly opinionated, but I really feel that using typedef generally decreases the readability of the code. Especially since a property named accessToken doesn't sound like a function.
| @@ -122,18 +133,30 @@ class SupabaseClient { | |||
| }, | |||
| _httpClient = httpClient, | |||
| _isolate = isolate ?? (YAJsonIsolate()..initialize()) { | |||
| auth = _initSupabaseAuthClient( | |||
| _authInstance = _initSupabaseAuthClient( | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
When a custom access token is passed, no auth instance should be created, right? From what I see, this is still the case, but just because it's marked as late. I would prefer a clearer structure to ensure no auth instance is created.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We can always come back and change the implementation of it. For now, I'm going to merge this PR as this is not really critical.
What kind of change does this PR introduce?
Adds support for the accessToken option on the Supabase client which can be used to provide a third-party authentication (e.g. Auth0, Clerk, Firebase Auth, ...) access token or ID token to be used instead of Supabase Auth.
When set, supabase.auth.xyz cannot be used and an error will be thrown.
js PR here: supabase/supabase-js#1004