auth: align API with current abilities

[roymiloh]

No description provided.

[claude]

Claude finished @roymiloh's task —— View job

---

Code Review for PR #49: auth: align API with current abilities

I've reviewed the changes to src/modules/auth.ts. This PR adds a new loginWithProvider method to support OAuth provider authentication.

✅ Code Quality and Best Practices

The implementation follows good practices:

• Clear JSDoc documentation with proper parameter descriptions
• Consistent coding style matching the existing codebase
• Appropriate error handling for browser environment checks
• Clean URL construction using the URL API

✅ Functionality

The new loginWithProvider method correctly:

• Validates the browser environment (consistent with other methods)
• Handles provider-specific URL paths (special case for Google as default)
• Properly encodes URL parameters
• Follows the established pattern from the existing redirectToLogin method

⚠️ Potential Issues

1. Missing browser environment check: The loginWithProvider method doesn't validate typeof window === "undefined" like redirectToLogin does. This could cause runtime errors in SSR/Node.js environments.

   loginWithProvider(provider: string, fromUrl: string = "/") {
     // Missing check:
     if (typeof window === "undefined") {
       throw new Error(
         "loginWithProvider can only be used in a browser environment"
       );
     }
     // ... rest of the method
   }

2. Input validation: No validation for the provider parameter. Consider validating against supported providers or documenting which providers are supported.

✅ Performance Considerations

The implementation is lightweight with minimal overhead:

• Direct URL construction without unnecessary operations
• No blocking operations or heavy computations

✅ Security Considerations

Security aspects appear sound:

• URL parameters are properly encoded using encodeURIComponent
• No sensitive data exposed in URLs
• Follows OAuth redirect flow best practices

However, consider:

• Adding validation for the provider parameter to prevent potential open redirect vulnerabilities
• Documenting supported providers to prevent misuse

❌ Test Coverage

No tests were added for the new loginWithProvider method. Consider adding tests to verify:

• Browser environment validation (when added)
• URL construction for different providers
• Proper encoding of the fromUrl parameter
• Edge cases (empty provider, invalid URLs, etc.)

Summary

The implementation is clean and follows the existing patterns well. The main concern is the missing browser environment check which could cause runtime errors. I'd also recommend adding input validation for the provider parameter and including tests for the new functionality.

Todo List:

• Read src/modules/auth.ts to understand the changes
• Check for CLAUDE.md guidelines
• Review code quality and best practices
• Check for potential bugs or issues
• Evaluate performance considerations
• Assess security concerns
• Review test coverage
• Provide comprehensive feedback

Review complete!

[claude]

Claude finished @roymiloh's task —— View job

---

Code Review for PR #49: auth: align API with current abilities

I've reviewed the changes to src/modules/auth.ts which adds a new loginWithProvider method for OAuth provider authentication.

✅ Code Quality and Best Practices

The implementation follows good coding practices:

• Clear JSDoc documentation with parameter descriptions
• Consistent coding style matching the existing codebase
• Follows the established pattern from the redirectToLogin method
• Uses modern JavaScript features appropriately (template literals, default parameters)

🐛 Potential Bugs or Issues

Critical Issue: Missing browser environment check

The loginWithProvider method (lines 70-84) lacks the browser environment validation that exists in the redirectToLogin method. This will cause runtime errors in SSR/Node.js environments:

loginWithProvider(provider: string, fromUrl: string = "/") {
  // Missing check:
  if (typeof window === "undefined") {
    throw new Error(
      "loginWithProvider can only be used in a browser environment"
    );
  }
  
  // Build the full redirect URL
  const redirectUrl = new URL(fromUrl, window.location.origin).toString();
  // ...
}

The method accesses window.location.origin on line 72 without checking if window exists, which will throw a ReferenceError in server-side environments.

⚡ Performance Considerations

The implementation is efficient:

• Direct URL construction without unnecessary operations
• No blocking operations or heavy computations
• Minimal memory usage

🔒 Security Concerns

Overall security looks good with proper URL encoding, but consider:

1. Provider validation: The method accepts any string as a provider without validation. Consider maintaining a list of supported providers or documenting which providers are valid.

2. URL construction: While the fromUrl is properly encoded with encodeURIComponent, ensure the server validates this parameter to prevent potential open redirect vulnerabilities.

3. HTTPS enforcement: Consider validating that options.serverUrl uses HTTPS in production environments.

❌ Test Coverage

No tests exist for the auth module:

• No test files found for the auth module (*auth*.test.ts or *auth*.spec.ts)
• The new loginWithProvider method lacks test coverage

Consider adding tests to verify:

• Browser environment check (once added)
• Correct URL construction for different providers
• Proper encoding of the fromUrl parameter
• Edge cases (empty provider, special characters in URLs, etc.)

📝 Additional Observations

1. Inconsistent line spacing: A blank line was added after the me() method (line 26), which seems unrelated to the PR's purpose.

2. Provider-specific logic: The special handling for Google as the default provider (line 75) should be documented more clearly, perhaps in the JSDoc comment.

Summary

The implementation is clean and follows existing patterns, but the missing browser environment check is a critical bug that must be fixed before merging. I also strongly recommend adding test coverage for this new functionality.

Todo List:

• Read src/modules/auth.ts to understand the changes
• Check for CLAUDE.md guidelines
• Review code quality and best practices
• Check for potential bugs or issues
• Evaluate performance considerations
• Assess security concerns
• Review test coverage
• Provide comprehensive feedback

[github-actions]

🚀 Package Preview Available!

---

Install this PR's preview build with npm:

npm i @base44-preview/[email protected]

Prefer not to change any import paths? Install using npm alias so your code still imports @base44/sdk:

npm i "@base44/sdk@npm:@base44-preview/[email protected]"

Or add it to your package.json dependencies:

{
  "dependencies": {
    "@base44/sdk": "npm:@base44-preview/[email protected]"
  }
}

• 📦 Preview Package: @base44-preview/[email protected]
• 🔗 View this commit on GitHub

---

_{Preview published to npm registry — try new features instantly!}

[claude]

Claude finished @roymiloh's task —— View job

---

Code Review for PR #49: auth: align API with current abilities

I've reviewed the changes to src/modules/auth.ts. This PR adds a new loginWithProvider method for OAuth provider authentication.

🐛 Critical Bug: Missing Browser Environment Check

The loginWithProvider method (lines 70-84) lacks the browser environment validation that exists in other methods like redirectToLogin. This will cause a ReferenceError in server-side environments (SSR/Node.js):

loginWithProvider(provider: string, fromUrl: string = "/") {
  // ❌ Missing check - accessing window.location.origin will fail in Node.js
  const redirectUrl = new URL(fromUrl, window.location.origin).toString();
  // ...
}

Required fix:

loginWithProvider(provider: string, fromUrl: string = "/") {
  // This function only works in a browser environment
  if (typeof window === "undefined") {
    throw new Error(
      "loginWithProvider can only be used in a browser environment"
    );
  }
  
  // Build the full redirect URL
  const redirectUrl = new URL(fromUrl, window.location.origin).toString();
  // ... rest of the method
}

✅ Code Quality and Best Practices

The implementation otherwise follows good practices:

• Clear JSDoc documentation with parameter descriptions
• Consistent coding style matching the existing codebase
• Follows established patterns from other auth methods
• Clean URL construction using the URL API

⚡ Performance Considerations

The implementation is efficient:

• Direct URL construction without unnecessary operations
• No blocking operations or heavy computations
• Minimal memory allocation

🔒 Security Concerns

Security implementation looks good overall:

• URL parameters are properly encoded using encodeURIComponent
• No sensitive data exposed in URLs
• Follows OAuth redirect flow best practices

Recommendations:

1. Consider validating the provider parameter against a list of supported providers to prevent potential misuse
2. Document which providers are officially supported in the JSDoc comment

❌ Test Coverage

No tests were added for the new method. The existing test file (tests/unit/auth.test.js) has comprehensive coverage for other auth methods but lacks tests for loginWithProvider.

Consider adding tests to verify:

• Browser environment check (once implemented)
• URL construction for different providers (Google vs others)
• Proper encoding of the fromUrl parameter
• Edge cases (empty provider, special characters in URLs)

📝 Additional Observations

1. An unrelated blank line was added after the me() method (line 26)
2. The special handling for Google as the default provider could be better documented

Summary

The implementation follows existing patterns well, but the missing browser environment check is a critical bug that must be fixed before merging. This will cause runtime errors for any server-side rendered applications using this SDK.

Todo List:

• Check for CLAUDE.md guidelines
• Read src/modules/auth.ts to understand the changes
• Check if previous review issues were addressed
• Review code quality and best practices
• Check for potential bugs or issues
• Evaluate performance considerations
• Assess security concerns
• Review test coverage
• Provide comprehensive feedback

[claude]

Claude finished @roymiloh's task —— View job

---

Code Review for PR #49: auth: align API with current abilities

I've reviewed the changes to src/modules/auth.ts. This PR adds a new loginWithProvider method for OAuth provider authentication and converts JSDoc comments to inline comments.

🐛 Critical Bug: Missing Browser Environment Check

The previous critical issue remains unfixed. The loginWithProvider method (lines 61-75) still lacks the browser environment validation that exists in other methods like redirectToLogin. This will cause a ReferenceError in server-side environments (SSR/Node.js):

loginWithProvider(provider: string, fromUrl: string = "/") {
  // ❌ Missing check - accessing window.location.origin will fail in Node.js
  const redirectUrl = new URL(fromUrl, window.location.origin).toString();
  // ...
}

Required fix:

loginWithProvider(provider: string, fromUrl: string = "/") {
  // This function only works in a browser environment
  if (typeof window === "undefined") {
    throw new Error(
      "loginWithProvider can only be used in a browser environment"
    );
  }
  
  // Build the full redirect URL
  const redirectUrl = new URL(fromUrl, window.location.origin).toString();
  // ... rest of the method
}

❌ Missing Type Definition

The loginWithProvider method is not defined in the AuthModule interface in auth.types.ts. This breaks TypeScript support and will cause type errors for SDK users.

Required addition to auth.types.ts:

/**
 * Redirects the user to a provider's login page.
 * 
 * @param provider - OAuth provider name (e.g., 'google', 'github')
 * @param fromUrl - Optional URL to redirect to after successful login (defaults to '/')
 * @throws {Error} When not in a browser environment
 */
loginWithProvider(provider: string, fromUrl?: string): void;

✅ Code Quality and Best Practices

The implementation otherwise follows good patterns:

• Consistent coding style matching the existing codebase
• Clean URL construction using the URL API
• Proper URL parameter encoding

However:

• The conversion from JSDoc to inline comments reduces documentation quality
• The new method lacks proper documentation explaining its purpose and parameters

⚡ Performance Considerations

The implementation is efficient with no performance concerns:

• Direct URL construction without unnecessary operations
• No blocking operations or heavy computations

🔒 Security Concerns

Security implementation looks good:

• URL parameters are properly encoded using encodeURIComponent
• No sensitive data exposed in URLs
• Follows OAuth redirect flow best practices

Recommendations:

1. Consider validating the provider parameter against supported providers
2. Document which providers are officially supported

❌ Test Coverage

No tests exist for the new method. The test file has comprehensive coverage for other auth methods but lacks tests for loginWithProvider.

Tests needed:

• Browser environment check
• URL construction for different providers (Google vs others)
• Proper encoding of the fromUrl parameter
• Edge cases (empty provider, special characters)

📝 Additional Issues

1. Documentation regression: Converting JSDoc to inline comments removes structured documentation that tools and IDEs rely on
2. Incomplete TypeScript support: Without the type definition, TypeScript users lose autocomplete and type safety
3. Unrelated change: A blank line was added after the me() method

Summary

This PR has two critical issues that must be fixed:

1. Missing browser environment check - causes runtime errors in SSR/Node.js
2. Missing TypeScript type definition - breaks type safety for SDK users

The feature implementation is otherwise clean, but needs tests and proper documentation.

Todo List:

• Read CLAUDE.md for repository guidelines
• Read src/modules/auth.ts to analyze the changes
• Check if previous critical bug (missing browser check) was fixed
• Review code quality and best practices
• Check for potential bugs or issues
• Evaluate performance considerations
• Assess security concerns
• Review test coverage
• Provide comprehensive review feedback

[claude]

Claude finished @roymiloh's task —— View job

---

Code Review for PR #49: auth: align API with current abilities

I've thoroughly reviewed the changes to both src/modules/auth.ts and src/modules/auth.types.ts. This PR adds a new loginWithProvider method for OAuth provider authentication.

✅ Good News

The previous critical issue with the TypeScript type definition has been fixed! The loginWithProvider method is now properly defined in the AuthModule interface in auth.types.ts (lines 188-208) with comprehensive JSDoc documentation.

🐛 Critical Bug: Missing Browser Environment Check

The critical bug from previous reviews remains unfixed. The loginWithProvider method in src/modules/auth.ts (lines 61-75) still lacks the browser environment validation that exists in other methods like redirectToLogin. This will cause a ReferenceError in server-side environments (SSR/Node.js):

// Current implementation (lines 61-63)
loginWithProvider(provider: string, fromUrl: string = "/") {
  // Build the full redirect URL
  const redirectUrl = new URL(fromUrl, window.location.origin).toString();
  // ❌ Accessing window.location.origin without checking if window exists

Required fix:

loginWithProvider(provider: string, fromUrl: string = "/") {
  // This function only works in a browser environment
  if (typeof window === "undefined") {
    throw new Error(
      "loginWithProvider can only be used in a browser environment"
    );
  }
  
  // Build the full redirect URL
  const redirectUrl = new URL(fromUrl, window.location.origin).toString();
  // ... rest of the method
}

✅ Code Quality and Best Practices

The implementation otherwise follows good practices:

• Excellent JSDoc documentation in the type definition with clear examples
• Consistent coding style matching the existing codebase
• Clean URL construction using the URL API
• Proper parameter defaults

⚡ Performance Considerations

No performance concerns:

• Direct URL construction without unnecessary operations
• No blocking operations or heavy computations
• Minimal memory usage

🔒 Security Concerns

Security implementation looks solid:

• URL parameters are properly encoded using encodeURIComponent
• No sensitive data exposed in URLs
• Follows OAuth redirect flow best practices

Recommendations for improvement:

1. Consider validating the provider parameter against a list of supported providers
2. The JSDoc mentions providers like 'google', 'microsoft' in examples - consider documenting all supported providers

❌ Test Coverage

No tests exist for the new loginWithProvider method. I searched the test files and found zero occurrences. The existing test files have comprehensive coverage for other auth methods but lack tests for this new functionality.

Tests needed:

• Browser environment check (once implemented)
• URL construction for different providers (Google vs others)
• Proper encoding of the fromUrl parameter
• Edge cases (empty provider, special characters in URLs)

📝 Additional Observations

1. The special handling for Google as the default provider (line 66: provider === "google" ? "" : "/${provider}") is implemented but could benefit from a code comment explaining why Google doesn't need a provider path.

2. The type definition properly documents that this method requires a browser environment and throws an error otherwise, but the implementation doesn't actually perform this check.

Summary

This PR is almost ready but has one critical bug that must be fixed before merging: the missing browser environment check. This is not a nice-to-have - it will cause runtime crashes for any server-side rendered applications using this SDK.

The TypeScript types are now properly defined (great improvement from previous versions!), but the implementation needs to match the documented behavior. Additionally, test coverage should be added before merging.

Todo List:

• Read CLAUDE.md for repository guidelines
• Read src/modules/auth.ts to analyze the changes
• Read src/modules/auth.types.ts to check TypeScript definitions
• Check if previous critical bug (missing browser check) was fixed
• Review code quality and best practices
• Check for potential bugs or issues
• Evaluate performance considerations
• Assess security concerns
• Review test coverage
• Provide comprehensive review feedback