github-starred/better-auth
2
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/better-auth/better-auth.git synced 2026-05-23 15:42:09 -05:00
Code Issues 2.5k Packages Projects Releases 112 Wiki Activity

[GH-ISSUE #424] Make name field optional #16898

New Issue
Open
opened 2026-04-15 14:52:21 -05:00 by GiteaMirror · 34 comments
GiteaMirror commented 2026-04-15 14:52:21 -05:00
Owner
Copy Link

Originally created by @firstaxel on GitHub (Nov 5, 2024).
Original GitHub issue: https://github.com/better-auth/better-auth/issues/424

Originally assigned to: @bytaesu on GitHub.

Originally created by @firstaxel on GitHub (Nov 5, 2024). Original GitHub issue: https://github.com/better-auth/better-auth/issues/424 Originally assigned to: @bytaesu on GitHub.
GiteaMirror added the breakingcore labels 2026-04-15 14:52:21 -05:00
GiteaMirror commented 2026-04-15 14:52:22 -05:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@firstaxel commented on GitHub (Nov 5, 2024):

not all signUp as i have seen doesnt ask for the user name

<!-- gh-comment-id:2457117165 --> @firstaxel commented on GitHub (Nov 5, 2024): not all signUp as i have seen doesnt ask for the user name
GiteaMirror commented 2026-04-15 14:52:22 -05:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@itsderinger commented on GitHub (Nov 7, 2024):

@firstaxel, how did you resolve this? facing the same issue.

<!-- gh-comment-id:2461077611 --> @itsderinger commented on GitHub (Nov 7, 2024): @firstaxel, how did you resolve this? facing the same issue.
GiteaMirror commented 2026-04-15 14:52:23 -05:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@firstaxel commented on GitHub (Nov 7, 2024):

you can bypass this error by
name: ""
the error is going to go

<!-- gh-comment-id:2462326420 --> @firstaxel commented on GitHub (Nov 7, 2024): you can bypass this error by ` name: "" ` the error is going to go
GiteaMirror commented 2026-04-15 14:52:23 -05:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@itsderinger commented on GitHub (Nov 11, 2024):

you can bypass this error by name: "" the error is going to go

I figured, but that's really counter-intuitive, hence making the field optional in the config is still the better approach, imo.

<!-- gh-comment-id:2467883889 --> @itsderinger commented on GitHub (Nov 11, 2024): > you can bypass this error by `name: ""` the error is going to go I figured, but that's really counter-intuitive, hence making the field optional in the config is still the better approach, imo.
GiteaMirror commented 2026-04-15 14:52:23 -05:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@itsderinger commented on GitHub (Nov 14, 2024):

@Bekacru What's your take? Would be cool to have it before v1?

<!-- gh-comment-id:2476533532 --> @itsderinger commented on GitHub (Nov 14, 2024): @Bekacru What's your take? Would be cool to have it before v1?
GiteaMirror commented 2026-04-15 14:52:24 -05:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@chris-verclytte commented on GitHub (Dec 3, 2024):

Same here, you might easily have a user flow that just ask for the email and password and provide further details afterwards to limit the UX friction.

Maybe something like :

export const auth = betterAuth({
   user: {
    fields: {
      name: { required: false } // provide options instead of a simple string for mapping
    },
  },
})

// or 

export const auth = betterAuth({
   user: {
    additionalFields: {
      name: { required: false } // override default behavior when set in additionalFields
    },
  },
})

But it might even be preferable to get rid of the name in better-auth as you might want to split name with first_name / last_name in your DB and having name create an unnecessary column in the db.

<!-- gh-comment-id:2514541504 --> @chris-verclytte commented on GitHub (Dec 3, 2024): Same here, you might easily have a user flow that just ask for the email and password and provide further details afterwards to limit the UX friction. Maybe something like : ```js export const auth = betterAuth({ user: { fields: { name: { required: false } // provide options instead of a simple string for mapping }, }, }) // or export const auth = betterAuth({ user: { additionalFields: { name: { required: false } // override default behavior when set in additionalFields }, }, }) ``` But it might even be preferable to get rid of the name in `better-auth` as you might want to split name with first_name / last_name in your DB and having name create an unnecessary column in the db.
GiteaMirror commented 2026-04-15 14:52:24 -05:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@firstaxel commented on GitHub (Dec 5, 2024):

Thanks this is true please fix it

On Tue, Dec 3, 2024, 2:20 PM Christophe Verclytte @.***>
wrote:

Same here, you might easily have a user flow that just ask for the email
and password and provide further details afterwards to limit the UX
friction.

Maybe something like :

export const auth = betterAuth({
user: {
fields: {
name: { required: false }
},
},})
// or
export const auth = betterAuth({
user: {
additionalFields: {
name: { required: false } // override
},
},})

But it might even be preferable to get rid of the name in better-auth as
you might want to split name with first_name / last_name in your DB and
having name create an unnecessary column in the db.

—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
https://github.com/better-auth/better-auth/issues/424#issuecomment-2514541504,
or unsubscribe
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/A5RGP2WQE7CC55MD3N32C3D2DWV2NAVCNFSM6AAAAABRGP5RMWVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDKMJUGU2DCNJQGQ
.
You are receiving this because you modified the open/close state.Message
ID: @.***>

<!-- gh-comment-id:2520138771 --> @firstaxel commented on GitHub (Dec 5, 2024): Thanks this is true please fix it On Tue, Dec 3, 2024, 2:20 PM Christophe Verclytte ***@***.***> wrote: > Same here, you might easily have a user flow that just ask for the email > and password and provide further details afterwards to limit the UX > friction. > > Maybe something like : > > export const auth = betterAuth({ > user: { > fields: { > name: { required: false } > }, > },}) > // or > export const auth = betterAuth({ > user: { > additionalFields: { > name: { required: false } // override > }, > },}) > > But it might even be preferable to get rid of the name in better-auth as > you might want to split name with first_name / last_name in your DB and > having name create an unnecessary column in the db. > > — > Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub > <https://github.com/better-auth/better-auth/issues/424#issuecomment-2514541504>, > or unsubscribe > <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/A5RGP2WQE7CC55MD3N32C3D2DWV2NAVCNFSM6AAAAABRGP5RMWVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDKMJUGU2DCNJQGQ> > . > You are receiving this because you modified the open/close state.Message > ID: ***@***.***> >
GiteaMirror commented 2026-04-15 14:52:24 -05:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@ping-maxwell commented on GitHub (Dec 9, 2024):

Totally agree with this, in my case, I have a first_name and last_name. I don't need the name field at all.

<!-- gh-comment-id:2527605218 --> @ping-maxwell commented on GitHub (Dec 9, 2024): Totally agree with this, in my case, I have a `first_name` and `last_name`. I don't need the `name` field at all.
GiteaMirror commented 2026-04-15 14:52:25 -05:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@zispidd commented on GitHub (Feb 13, 2025):

@Bekacru any updates on this and "image" field?

<!-- gh-comment-id:2655225355 --> @zispidd commented on GitHub (Feb 13, 2025): @Bekacru any updates on this and "image" field?
GiteaMirror commented 2026-04-15 14:52:25 -05:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@ping-maxwell commented on GitHub (Feb 13, 2025):

There are future plans to make the fields dynamic.
Not sure when this will be a thing, but it's definitely on @Bekacru radar and apart of the plan.

<!-- gh-comment-id:2655579739 --> @ping-maxwell commented on GitHub (Feb 13, 2025): There are future plans to make the fields dynamic. Not sure when this will be a thing, but it's definitely on @Bekacru radar and apart of the plan.
GiteaMirror commented 2026-04-15 14:52:26 -05:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@dosubot[bot] commented on GitHub (Jun 15, 2025):

Hi, @firstaxel. I'm Dosu, and I'm helping the better-auth team manage their backlog. I'm marking this issue as stale.

Issue Summary:

  • You requested making the name field optional during sign-up to enhance user experience.
  • @itsderinger and @chris-verclytte support the change, suggesting configurations and discussing removing the name field entirely.
  • @ping-maxwell and others agree, noting they don't require a name field in their implementations.
  • @zispidd asked for updates, and @ping-maxwell mentioned that dynamic fields are on @Bekacru's radar for future updates.

Next Steps:

  • Please confirm if this issue is still relevant to the latest version of the better-auth repository by commenting here.
  • If no updates are provided, the issue will be automatically closed in 7 days.

Thank you for your understanding and contribution!

<!-- gh-comment-id:2974147670 --> @dosubot[bot] commented on GitHub (Jun 15, 2025): Hi, @firstaxel. I'm [Dosu](https://dosu.dev), and I'm helping the better-auth team manage their backlog. I'm marking this issue as stale. **Issue Summary:** - You requested making the name field optional during sign-up to enhance user experience. - @itsderinger and @chris-verclytte support the change, suggesting configurations and discussing removing the name field entirely. - @ping-maxwell and others agree, noting they don't require a name field in their implementations. - @zispidd asked for updates, and @ping-maxwell mentioned that dynamic fields are on @Bekacru's radar for future updates. **Next Steps:** - Please confirm if this issue is still relevant to the latest version of the better-auth repository by commenting here. - If no updates are provided, the issue will be automatically closed in 7 days. Thank you for your understanding and contribution!
GiteaMirror commented 2026-04-15 14:52:26 -05:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@zispidd commented on GitHub (Jun 15, 2025):

still relevant

<!-- gh-comment-id:2974151571 --> @zispidd commented on GitHub (Jun 15, 2025): still relevant
GiteaMirror commented 2026-04-15 14:52:27 -05:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@Makakusnik commented on GitHub (Jun 29, 2025):

+1
Plugins should do bare minimum but they should be opened to any adjustments.. for example emailAndPassword plugin should be only responsible for emailAndPassword i really really dont understand need of name being in there too, and image aswell but that's optional at least..

<!-- gh-comment-id:3016495040 --> @Makakusnik commented on GitHub (Jun 29, 2025): +1 Plugins should do bare minimum but they should be opened to any adjustments.. for example emailAndPassword plugin should be only responsible for emailAndPassword i really really dont understand need of name being in there too, and image aswell but that's optional at least..
GiteaMirror commented 2026-04-15 14:52:27 -05:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@dosubot[bot] commented on GitHub (Sep 28, 2025):

Hi, @firstaxel. I'm Dosu, and I'm helping the better-auth team manage their backlog and am marking this issue as stale.

Issue Summary:

  • You requested making the name field optional during sign-up to improve user experience.
  • Multiple community members supported this, suggesting configuration options or removal of the name field.
  • The maintainer acknowledged this feature is planned for future dynamic field support but has not provided a timeline.
  • The issue remains open with community consensus favoring optional or configurable name fields.

Next Steps:

  • Please let me know if this issue is still relevant to the latest version of better-auth by commenting here.
  • If I do not hear back within 7 days, this issue will be automatically closed.

Thank you for your understanding and contribution!

<!-- gh-comment-id:3343831016 --> @dosubot[bot] commented on GitHub (Sep 28, 2025): Hi, @firstaxel. I'm [Dosu](https://dosu.dev), and I'm helping the better-auth team manage their backlog and am marking this issue as stale. **Issue Summary:** - You requested making the name field optional during sign-up to improve user experience. - Multiple community members supported this, suggesting configuration options or removal of the name field. - The maintainer acknowledged this feature is planned for future dynamic field support but has not provided a timeline. - The issue remains open with community consensus favoring optional or configurable name fields. **Next Steps:** - Please let me know if this issue is still relevant to the latest version of better-auth by commenting here. - If I do not hear back within 7 days, this issue will be automatically closed. Thank you for your understanding and contribution!
GiteaMirror commented 2026-04-15 14:52:27 -05:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@firstaxel commented on GitHub (Sep 28, 2025):

Still relevant it has been changed

On Sun, 28 Sept 2025, 17:03 dosubot[bot], @.***> wrote:

dosubot[bot] left a comment (better-auth/better-auth#424)
https://github.com/better-auth/better-auth/issues/424#issuecomment-3343831016

Hi, @firstaxel https://github.com/firstaxel. I'm Dosu https://dosu.dev,
and I'm helping the better-auth team manage their backlog and am marking
this issue as stale.

Issue Summary:

  • You requested making the name field optional during sign-up to
    improve user experience.
  • Multiple community members supported this, suggesting configuration
    options or removal of the name field.
  • The maintainer acknowledged this feature is planned for future
    dynamic field support but has not provided a timeline.
  • The issue remains open with community consensus favoring optional or
    configurable name fields.

Next Steps:

  • Please let me know if this issue is still relevant to the latest
    version of better-auth by commenting here.
  • If I do not hear back within 7 days, this issue will be
    automatically closed.

Thank you for your understanding and contribution!

—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
https://github.com/better-auth/better-auth/issues/424#issuecomment-3343831016,
or unsubscribe
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/A5RGP2UJBTJ5NJF6XL6ETSL3VABDNAVCNFSM6AAAAABRGP5RMWVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZTGNBTHAZTCMBRGY
.
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID:
@.***>

<!-- gh-comment-id:3343872259 --> @firstaxel commented on GitHub (Sep 28, 2025): Still relevant it has been changed On Sun, 28 Sept 2025, 17:03 dosubot[bot], ***@***.***> wrote: > *dosubot[bot]* left a comment (better-auth/better-auth#424) > <https://github.com/better-auth/better-auth/issues/424#issuecomment-3343831016> > > Hi, @firstaxel <https://github.com/firstaxel>. I'm Dosu <https://dosu.dev>, > and I'm helping the better-auth team manage their backlog and am marking > this issue as stale. > > *Issue Summary:* > > - You requested making the name field optional during sign-up to > improve user experience. > - Multiple community members supported this, suggesting configuration > options or removal of the name field. > - The maintainer acknowledged this feature is planned for future > dynamic field support but has not provided a timeline. > - The issue remains open with community consensus favoring optional or > configurable name fields. > > *Next Steps:* > > - Please let me know if this issue is still relevant to the latest > version of better-auth by commenting here. > - If I do not hear back within 7 days, this issue will be > automatically closed. > > Thank you for your understanding and contribution! > > — > Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub > <https://github.com/better-auth/better-auth/issues/424#issuecomment-3343831016>, > or unsubscribe > <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/A5RGP2UJBTJ5NJF6XL6ETSL3VABDNAVCNFSM6AAAAABRGP5RMWVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZTGNBTHAZTCMBRGY> > . > You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: > ***@***.***> >
GiteaMirror commented 2026-04-15 14:52:28 -05:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@firstaxel commented on GitHub (Sep 28, 2025):

I mean it hasn't been changed

On Sun, 28 Sept 2025, 17:49 Twinkle Dev, @.***> wrote:

Still relevant it has been changed

On Sun, 28 Sept 2025, 17:03 dosubot[bot], @.***>
wrote:

dosubot[bot] left a comment (better-auth/better-auth#424)
https://github.com/better-auth/better-auth/issues/424#issuecomment-3343831016

Hi, @firstaxel https://github.com/firstaxel. I'm Dosu
https://dosu.dev, and I'm helping the better-auth team manage their
backlog and am marking this issue as stale.

Issue Summary:

  • You requested making the name field optional during sign-up to
    improve user experience.
  • Multiple community members supported this, suggesting configuration
    options or removal of the name field.
  • The maintainer acknowledged this feature is planned for future
    dynamic field support but has not provided a timeline.
  • The issue remains open with community consensus favoring optional
    or configurable name fields.

Next Steps:

  • Please let me know if this issue is still relevant to the latest
    version of better-auth by commenting here.
  • If I do not hear back within 7 days, this issue will be
    automatically closed.

Thank you for your understanding and contribution!

—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
https://github.com/better-auth/better-auth/issues/424#issuecomment-3343831016,
or unsubscribe
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/A5RGP2UJBTJ5NJF6XL6ETSL3VABDNAVCNFSM6AAAAABRGP5RMWVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZTGNBTHAZTCMBRGY
.
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID:
@.***>

<!-- gh-comment-id:3343894718 --> @firstaxel commented on GitHub (Sep 28, 2025): I mean it hasn't been changed On Sun, 28 Sept 2025, 17:49 Twinkle Dev, ***@***.***> wrote: > Still relevant it has been changed > > On Sun, 28 Sept 2025, 17:03 dosubot[bot], ***@***.***> > wrote: > >> *dosubot[bot]* left a comment (better-auth/better-auth#424) >> <https://github.com/better-auth/better-auth/issues/424#issuecomment-3343831016> >> >> Hi, @firstaxel <https://github.com/firstaxel>. I'm Dosu >> <https://dosu.dev>, and I'm helping the better-auth team manage their >> backlog and am marking this issue as stale. >> >> *Issue Summary:* >> >> - You requested making the name field optional during sign-up to >> improve user experience. >> - Multiple community members supported this, suggesting configuration >> options or removal of the name field. >> - The maintainer acknowledged this feature is planned for future >> dynamic field support but has not provided a timeline. >> - The issue remains open with community consensus favoring optional >> or configurable name fields. >> >> *Next Steps:* >> >> - Please let me know if this issue is still relevant to the latest >> version of better-auth by commenting here. >> - If I do not hear back within 7 days, this issue will be >> automatically closed. >> >> Thank you for your understanding and contribution! >> >> — >> Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub >> <https://github.com/better-auth/better-auth/issues/424#issuecomment-3343831016>, >> or unsubscribe >> <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/A5RGP2UJBTJ5NJF6XL6ETSL3VABDNAVCNFSM6AAAAABRGP5RMWVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZTGNBTHAZTCMBRGY> >> . >> You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: >> ***@***.***> >> >
GiteaMirror commented 2026-04-15 14:52:28 -05:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@tomleidy commented on GitHub (Nov 5, 2025):

I’m really interested in this change, too. Requiring a name field when it’s "emailAndPassword" seems very strange. Looking forward to this getting implemented.

<!-- gh-comment-id:3492239684 --> @tomleidy commented on GitHub (Nov 5, 2025): I’m really interested in this change, too. Requiring a name field when it’s "emailAndPassword" seems very strange. Looking forward to this getting implemented.
GiteaMirror commented 2026-04-15 14:52:29 -05:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@JPustkuchen commented on GitHub (Dec 3, 2025):

I agree that for man SaaS cases you don't want a "Name", but just the email address (and maybe dedicated address fields). Name should be removed here or at least be made optional / nullable and left out in the object keys.

<!-- gh-comment-id:3607060610 --> @JPustkuchen commented on GitHub (Dec 3, 2025): I agree that for man SaaS cases you don't want a "Name", but just the email address (and maybe dedicated address fields). Name should be removed here or at least be made optional / nullable and left out in the object keys.
GiteaMirror commented 2026-04-15 14:52:29 -05:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@DNoel26 commented on GitHub (Dec 22, 2025):

Has this been changed? Before I bypassed the issue with setting name: "" but now I get the error: [body.name] Too small: expected string to have >=1 characters

<!-- gh-comment-id:3684075457 --> @DNoel26 commented on GitHub (Dec 22, 2025): Has this been changed? Before I bypassed the issue with setting `name: ""` but now I get the error: `[body.name] Too small: expected string to have >=1 characters`
GiteaMirror commented 2026-04-15 14:52:30 -05:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@firstaxel commented on GitHub (Dec 22, 2025):

It has not been fixed

On Mon, Dec 22, 2025, 9:34 PM Darnell Noel @.***> wrote:

DNoel26 left a comment (better-auth/better-auth#424)
https://github.com/better-auth/better-auth/issues/424#issuecomment-3684075457

Has this been changed? Before I bypassed the issue with setting name: ""
but now I get the error: [body.name] Too small: expected string to have

=1 characters

—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
https://github.com/better-auth/better-auth/issues/424#issuecomment-3684075457,
or unsubscribe
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/A5RGP2VBZN36OGWWYF7K36T4DBIWNAVCNFSM6AAAAABRGP5RMWVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZTMOBUGA3TKNBVG4
.
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID:
@.***>

<!-- gh-comment-id:3684231523 --> @firstaxel commented on GitHub (Dec 22, 2025): It has not been fixed On Mon, Dec 22, 2025, 9:34 PM Darnell Noel ***@***.***> wrote: > *DNoel26* left a comment (better-auth/better-auth#424) > <https://github.com/better-auth/better-auth/issues/424#issuecomment-3684075457> > > Has this been changed? Before I bypassed the issue with setting name: "" > but now I get the error: [body.name] Too small: expected string to have > >=1 characters > > — > Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub > <https://github.com/better-auth/better-auth/issues/424#issuecomment-3684075457>, > or unsubscribe > <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/A5RGP2VBZN36OGWWYF7K36T4DBIWNAVCNFSM6AAAAABRGP5RMWVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZTMOBUGA3TKNBVG4> > . > You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: > ***@***.***> >
GiteaMirror commented 2026-04-15 14:52:30 -05:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@DNoel26 commented on GitHub (Dec 22, 2025):

It has not been fixed
…

I know, that's why I passed an empty string. But as of recently I need to pass at least 1 character or I'd get the error I mentioned.

<!-- gh-comment-id:3684237452 --> @DNoel26 commented on GitHub (Dec 22, 2025): > It has not been fixed > […](#) I know, that's why I passed an empty string. But as of recently I need to pass at least 1 character or I'd get the error I mentioned.
GiteaMirror commented 2026-04-15 14:52:31 -05:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@JE4GLE commented on GitHub (Dec 23, 2025):

@Bekacru +1 Since the empty string isn't working any more, this issue is getting more and more annoying

<!-- gh-comment-id:3686436268 --> @JE4GLE commented on GitHub (Dec 23, 2025): @Bekacru +1 Since the empty string isn't working any more, this issue is getting more and more annoying
GiteaMirror commented 2026-04-15 14:52:31 -05:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@JE4GLE commented on GitHub (Dec 23, 2025):

I've created this temporary fix.

export const auth = betterAuth({
	databaseHooks: {
		user: {
			create: {
				before: async (user, ctx) => {
					if (ctx?.path === '/sign-up/email') {
						// Temporary fix for better-auth issue #424
						if (user.name === user.email) {
							return {
								data: {
									...user,
									name: undefined
								}
							};
						}
					}
				}
			}
		}
	}
});

Just set the name the same as the email:

authClient.signUp.email(
  {
  	name: username,
  	email: username,
  	password: password,
  }
);
<!-- gh-comment-id:3686477495 --> @JE4GLE commented on GitHub (Dec 23, 2025): I've created this temporary fix. ```typescript export const auth = betterAuth({ databaseHooks: { user: { create: { before: async (user, ctx) => { if (ctx?.path === '/sign-up/email') { // Temporary fix for better-auth issue #424 if (user.name === user.email) { return { data: { ...user, name: undefined } }; } } } } } } }); ``` Just set the name the same as the email: ```typescript authClient.signUp.email( { name: username, email: username, password: password, } ); ```
GiteaMirror commented 2026-04-15 14:52:31 -05:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@xsevy commented on GitHub (Dec 28, 2025):

would love to see this in future release.

<!-- gh-comment-id:3694953653 --> @xsevy commented on GitHub (Dec 28, 2025): would love to see this in future release.
GiteaMirror commented 2026-04-15 14:52:32 -05:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@switz commented on GitHub (Jan 2, 2026):

This is a silly requirement, name is not a functional requirement in all applications.

<!-- gh-comment-id:3706066849 --> @switz commented on GitHub (Jan 2, 2026): This is a silly requirement, `name` is not a functional requirement in all applications.
GiteaMirror commented 2026-04-15 14:52:32 -05:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@Jlh77 commented on GitHub (Jan 5, 2026):

The fact that creating a user with name: "" is no longer accepted seems weird considering that you can still set name to blank when using updateUser.

Either it should be one behaviour or the other.

<!-- gh-comment-id:3712418110 --> @Jlh77 commented on GitHub (Jan 5, 2026): The fact that creating a user with `name: ""` is no longer accepted seems weird considering that you can still set `name` to blank when using `updateUser`. Either it should be one behaviour or the other.
GiteaMirror commented 2026-04-15 14:52:33 -05:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@bytaesu commented on GitHub (Jan 6, 2026):

We’re discussing including this in the next release 🙂

<!-- gh-comment-id:3713369565 --> @bytaesu commented on GitHub (Jan 6, 2026): We’re discussing including this in the next release 🙂
GiteaMirror commented 2026-04-15 14:52:33 -05:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@bytaesu commented on GitHub (Feb 2, 2026):

Note

We'll either find a way to do this without a breaking change or try again in a major release like v2 🙂

<!-- gh-comment-id:3837084996 --> @bytaesu commented on GitHub (Feb 2, 2026): > [!NOTE] > We'll either find a way to do this without a breaking change or try again in a major release like v2 🙂
GiteaMirror commented 2026-04-15 14:52:33 -05:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@JPustkuchen commented on GitHub (Feb 3, 2026):

@bytaesu what's the final state here now in released code? This still looks to be completed?

<!-- gh-comment-id:3840287069 --> @JPustkuchen commented on GitHub (Feb 3, 2026): @bytaesu what's the final state here now in released code? This still looks to be completed?
GiteaMirror commented 2026-04-15 14:52:34 -05:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@bytaesu commented on GitHub (Mar 12, 2026):

@JPustkuchen sorry for late response

We try to avoid core schema changes and only handle them in major releases like v2 when absolutely necessary, so it's not planned for now.

<!-- gh-comment-id:4046248584 --> @bytaesu commented on GitHub (Mar 12, 2026): @JPustkuchen sorry for late response We try to avoid core schema changes and only handle them in major releases like v2 when absolutely necessary, so it's not planned for now.
GiteaMirror commented 2026-04-15 14:52:34 -05:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@JPustkuchen commented on GitHub (Mar 12, 2026):

@bytaesu thanks for the reply! As I can see you added a tag for that. I totally understand but would be great if this could be planned for the next major release then and not get closed. Thanks!

<!-- gh-comment-id:4046372092 --> @JPustkuchen commented on GitHub (Mar 12, 2026): @bytaesu thanks for the reply! As I can see you added a tag for that. I totally understand but would be great if this could be planned for the next major release then and not get closed. Thanks!
GiteaMirror commented 2026-04-15 14:52:34 -05:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@VIEWVIEWVIEW commented on GitHub (Apr 2, 2026):

Glad to see this is now aimed to be included in 2.0.0!

Don't forget to make emails configurable as optional too 😀

<!-- gh-comment-id:4179532347 --> @VIEWVIEWVIEW commented on GitHub (Apr 2, 2026): Glad to see this is now aimed to be included in 2.0.0! Don't forget to make emails configurable as optional too 😀
GiteaMirror commented 2026-04-15 14:52:34 -05:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@xzyfer commented on GitHub (Apr 4, 2026):

Please make email optional. We have multiple services with email-less auth using phone number + sms otp

<!-- gh-comment-id:4186155995 --> @xzyfer commented on GitHub (Apr 4, 2026): Please make email optional. We have multiple services with email-less auth using phone number + sms otp
GiteaMirror commented 2026-04-15 14:52:35 -05:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@nathan-hello commented on GitHub (Apr 11, 2026):

Is there any branches or forks developing this issue? I would like to contribute.

<!-- gh-comment-id:4229583224 --> @nathan-hello commented on GitHub (Apr 11, 2026): Is there any branches or forks developing this issue? I would like to contribute.
Sign in to join this conversation.
No Branch/Tag Specified
Branches Tags
Labels
Clear labels
adapter
astro
awaiting external contributor
blocked
breaking
breaking change
bug
c-devops
core
credentials
database
dependencies
devops
devtools
docs
documentation
duplicate
elysia
enhancement
enterprise
expo
express
fastify
good first issue
help wanted
hono
identity
infra
integration
invalid
javascript
locked
maintenance
need-more-information
needs: info
needs: repro
nextjs
nuxt
oauth
organization
P0
payments
perf
platform
plugin
pull-request
Mirrored from GitHub Pull Request
 question
ready
regression
remix
security
social-provider
solid
stale
svelte
tanstack-start
tracking
version-bump
vue
wontfix
No Label breaking core
Milestone
No items
No Milestone
Projects
Clear projects
No project
Assignees
Clear assignees
GiteaMirror ninjasurge
No Assignees
1 Participants
Notifications
Due Date
No due date set.
Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference: github-starred/better-auth#16898
Delete Branch "%!s()"

Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?