github-starred/better-auth
2
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/better-auth/better-auth.git synced 2026-05-24 08:01:56 -05:00
Code Issues 2.5k Packages Projects Releases 112 Wiki Activity

[GH-ISSUE #7814] Unknown field accountss for select statement on model users with experimental joins true #19546

New Issue
Closed
opened 2026-04-15 18:47:17 -05:00 by GiteaMirror · 9 comments
GiteaMirror commented 2026-04-15 18:47:17 -05:00
Owner
Copy Link

Originally created by @jparismorgan on GitHub (Feb 5, 2026).
Original GitHub issue: https://github.com/better-auth/better-auth/issues/7814

Originally assigned to: @bytaesu on GitHub.

Is this suited for github?

  • Yes, this is suited for github

To Reproduce

I'm trying to migrate from Supabase Auth to Better Auth, and get the following error:

2026-02-05T20:26:31.173Z ERROR [Better Auth]: PrismaClientValidationError Error [PrismaClientValidationError]: 
Invalid `db[model].findFirst()` invocation in
/Users/username/repo/my-repo/apps/web/.next/server/chunks/node_modules_better-auth_dist_05cc966b._.js:2684:52

  2681     map.set(key, getModelName(joinModel));
  2682 }
  2683 const selects = convertSelect(select, model, join);
→ 2684 const result = await db[model].findFirst({
         where: {
           email: "foo@gmail.com"
         },
         select: {
           name: true,
           email: true,
           emailVerified: true,
           image: true,
           createdAt: true,
           updatedAt: true,
           id: true,
           accountss: {
           ~~~~~~~~~
             take: 100
           },
       ?   sessions?: true,
       ?   accounts?: true,
       ?   followedBy?: true,
       ?   following?: true,
       ?   favoriteCharacters?: true,
       ?   favoriteStories?: true,
       ?   characters?: true,
       ?   stories?: true,
       ?   conversations?: true,
       ?   _count?: true
         }
       })

Unknown field `accountss` for select statement on model `users`. Available options are marked with ?.
    at async (src/app/api/auth/[...all]/route.ts:32:17)
  30 | function withCors(handler: Function) {
  31 |   return async (req: Request) => {
> 32 |     const res = await handler(req)
     |                 ^
  33 |     addCorsHeaders(new URL(req.url), res.headers)
  34 |     return res
  35 |   } {
  clientVersion: '5.22.0'
}
file:///Users/username/repo/my-repo/node_modules/@prisma/client/runtime/library.js: Invalid source map. Only conformant source maps can be used to find the original code. Cause: TypeError [ERR_INVALID_ARG_TYPE]: The "payload" argument must be of type object. Received null
# SERVER_ERROR:  Error [PrismaClientValidationError]: 
Invalid `db[model].findFirst()` invocation in
/Users/username/repo/my-repo/apps/web/.next/server/chunks/node_modules_better-auth_dist_05cc966b._.js:2684:52

  2681     map.set(key, getModelName(joinModel));
  2682 }
  2683 const selects = convertSelect(select, model, join);
→ 2684 const result = await db[model].findFirst({
         where: {
           email: "foo@gmail.com"
         },
         select: {
           name: true,
           email: true,
           emailVerified: true,
           image: true,
           createdAt: true,
           updatedAt: true,
           id: true,
           accountss: {
           ~~~~~~~~~
             take: 100
           },
       ?   sessions?: true,
       ?   accounts?: true,
       ?   followedBy?: true,
       ?   following?: true,
       ?   favoriteCharacters?: true,
       ?   favoriteStories?: true,
       ?   characters?: true,
       ?   stories?: true,
       ?   conversations?: true,
       ?   _count?: true
         }
       })

Unknown field `accountss` for select statement on model `users`. Available options are marked with ?.
    at async (src/app/api/auth/[...all]/route.ts:32:17)
  30 | function withCors(handler: Function) {
  31 |   return async (req: Request) => {
> 32 |     const res = await handler(req)
     |                 ^
  33 |     addCorsHeaders(new URL(req.url), res.headers)
  34 |     return res
  35 |   } {
  clientVersion: '5.22.0'
}
 POST /api/auth/sign-in/email 500 in 2355ms

I have the following schema.prisma (which I can't change):

model users {
  id        String   @id
  createdAt DateTime @default(now())
  updatedAt DateTime @updatedAt

  name          String
  email         String
  emailVerified Boolean

  sessions sessions[]
  accounts accounts[]

  image           String?

  @@unique([email])
}
...

I've tried a few things:

  1. Remove experimental joins. This fixes the issue.
  // experimental: {
  //   joins: true
  // },
  1. Leave experimental joins, but change to:
database: prismaAdapter(prisma, {
    provider: 'postgresql',
    usePlural: true
  }),
...
user: {
    modelName: 'user',
...

When I do that I can login okay and the app works for a few minutes, but at some point it crashes with:

2026-02-05T21:19:48.347Z ERROR [Better Auth]: INTERNAL_SERVER_ERROR Error [PrismaClientValidationError]: 
Invalid `db[model].findFirst()` invocation in
/Users/username/repo/my-repo/apps/web/.next/server/chunks/node_modules_better-auth_dist_07c43832._.js:3677:52

  3674     map.set(key, getModelName(joinModel));
  3675 }
  3676 const selects = convertSelect(select, model, join);
→ 3677 const result = await db[model].findFirst({
         where: {
           token: "foo..."
         },
         select: {
           expiresAt: true,
           token: true,
           createdAt: true,
           updatedAt: true,
           ipAddress: true,
           userAgent: true,
           userId: true,
           id: true,
           users: true,
           ~~~~~
       ?   user?: true
         }
       })

Unknown field `users` for select statement on model `sessions`. Available options are marked with ?.
    at async (src/app/api/auth/[...all]/route.ts:32:17)
  30 | function withCors(handler: Function) {
  31 |   return async (req: Request) => {
> 32 |     const res = await handler(req)
     |                 ^
  33 |     addCorsHeaders(new URL(req.url), res.headers)
  34 |     return res
  35 |   } {
  clientVersion: '5.22.0'
}
 GET /api/auth/get-session 200 in 459ms

Current vs. Expected behavior

I would expect experimental joins to work even with custom model names, as I'd like the performance benefits it offers.

What version of Better Auth are you using?

1.4.18

System info

{
  "system": {
    "platform": "darwin",
    "arch": "arm64",
    "version": "Darwin Kernel Version 23.4.0: Fri Mar 15 00:12:49 PDT 2024; root:xnu-10063.101.17~1/RELEASE_ARM64_T6020",
    "release": "23.4.0",
    "cpuCount": 12,
    "cpuModel": "Apple M2 Pro",
    "totalMemory": "32.00 GB",
    "freeMemory": "0.17 GB"
  },
  "node": {
    "version": "v21.7.3",
    "env": "development"
  },
  "packageManager": {
    "name": "npm",
    "version": "10.5.0"
  },
  "frameworks": [
    {
      "name": "next",
      "version": "^15.5.9"
    }
  ],
  "databases": null,
  "betterAuth": {
    "version": "Unknown",
    "config": null
  }
}

Which area(s) are affected? (Select all that apply)

Backend, Client

Auth config (if applicable)

Additional context

Thank you for any help!

Originally created by @jparismorgan on GitHub (Feb 5, 2026). Original GitHub issue: https://github.com/better-auth/better-auth/issues/7814 Originally assigned to: @bytaesu on GitHub. ### Is this suited for github? - [x] Yes, this is suited for github ### To Reproduce I'm trying to migrate from Supabase Auth to Better Auth, and get the following error: ``` 2026-02-05T20:26:31.173Z ERROR [Better Auth]: PrismaClientValidationError Error [PrismaClientValidationError]: Invalid `db[model].findFirst()` invocation in /Users/username/repo/my-repo/apps/web/.next/server/chunks/node_modules_better-auth_dist_05cc966b._.js:2684:52 2681 map.set(key, getModelName(joinModel)); 2682 } 2683 const selects = convertSelect(select, model, join); → 2684 const result = await db[model].findFirst({ where: { email: "foo@gmail.com" }, select: { name: true, email: true, emailVerified: true, image: true, createdAt: true, updatedAt: true, id: true, accountss: { ~~~~~~~~~ take: 100 }, ? sessions?: true, ? accounts?: true, ? followedBy?: true, ? following?: true, ? favoriteCharacters?: true, ? favoriteStories?: true, ? characters?: true, ? stories?: true, ? conversations?: true, ? _count?: true } }) Unknown field `accountss` for select statement on model `users`. Available options are marked with ?. at async (src/app/api/auth/[...all]/route.ts:32:17) 30 | function withCors(handler: Function) { 31 | return async (req: Request) => { > 32 | const res = await handler(req) | ^ 33 | addCorsHeaders(new URL(req.url), res.headers) 34 | return res 35 | } { clientVersion: '5.22.0' } file:///Users/username/repo/my-repo/node_modules/@prisma/client/runtime/library.js: Invalid source map. Only conformant source maps can be used to find the original code. Cause: TypeError [ERR_INVALID_ARG_TYPE]: The "payload" argument must be of type object. Received null # SERVER_ERROR: Error [PrismaClientValidationError]: Invalid `db[model].findFirst()` invocation in /Users/username/repo/my-repo/apps/web/.next/server/chunks/node_modules_better-auth_dist_05cc966b._.js:2684:52 2681 map.set(key, getModelName(joinModel)); 2682 } 2683 const selects = convertSelect(select, model, join); → 2684 const result = await db[model].findFirst({ where: { email: "foo@gmail.com" }, select: { name: true, email: true, emailVerified: true, image: true, createdAt: true, updatedAt: true, id: true, accountss: { ~~~~~~~~~ take: 100 }, ? sessions?: true, ? accounts?: true, ? followedBy?: true, ? following?: true, ? favoriteCharacters?: true, ? favoriteStories?: true, ? characters?: true, ? stories?: true, ? conversations?: true, ? _count?: true } }) Unknown field `accountss` for select statement on model `users`. Available options are marked with ?. at async (src/app/api/auth/[...all]/route.ts:32:17) 30 | function withCors(handler: Function) { 31 | return async (req: Request) => { > 32 | const res = await handler(req) | ^ 33 | addCorsHeaders(new URL(req.url), res.headers) 34 | return res 35 | } { clientVersion: '5.22.0' } POST /api/auth/sign-in/email 500 in 2355ms ``` I have the following `schema.prisma` (which I can't change): ``` model users { id String @id createdAt DateTime @default(now()) updatedAt DateTime @updatedAt name String email String emailVerified Boolean sessions sessions[] accounts accounts[] image String? @@unique([email]) } ... ``` I've tried a few things: 1. Remove experimental joins. This fixes the issue. ```ts // experimental: { // joins: true // }, ``` 2. Leave experimental joins, but change to: ``` database: prismaAdapter(prisma, { provider: 'postgresql', usePlural: true }), ... user: { modelName: 'user', ... ``` When I do that I can login okay and the app works for a few minutes, but at some point it crashes with: ``` 2026-02-05T21:19:48.347Z ERROR [Better Auth]: INTERNAL_SERVER_ERROR Error [PrismaClientValidationError]: Invalid `db[model].findFirst()` invocation in /Users/username/repo/my-repo/apps/web/.next/server/chunks/node_modules_better-auth_dist_07c43832._.js:3677:52 3674 map.set(key, getModelName(joinModel)); 3675 } 3676 const selects = convertSelect(select, model, join); → 3677 const result = await db[model].findFirst({ where: { token: "foo..." }, select: { expiresAt: true, token: true, createdAt: true, updatedAt: true, ipAddress: true, userAgent: true, userId: true, id: true, users: true, ~~~~~ ? user?: true } }) Unknown field `users` for select statement on model `sessions`. Available options are marked with ?. at async (src/app/api/auth/[...all]/route.ts:32:17) 30 | function withCors(handler: Function) { 31 | return async (req: Request) => { > 32 | const res = await handler(req) | ^ 33 | addCorsHeaders(new URL(req.url), res.headers) 34 | return res 35 | } { clientVersion: '5.22.0' } GET /api/auth/get-session 200 in 459ms ``` ### Current vs. Expected behavior I would expect experimental joins to work even with custom model names, as I'd like the performance benefits it offers. ### What version of Better Auth are you using? 1.4.18 ### System info ```bash { "system": { "platform": "darwin", "arch": "arm64", "version": "Darwin Kernel Version 23.4.0: Fri Mar 15 00:12:49 PDT 2024; root:xnu-10063.101.17~1/RELEASE_ARM64_T6020", "release": "23.4.0", "cpuCount": 12, "cpuModel": "Apple M2 Pro", "totalMemory": "32.00 GB", "freeMemory": "0.17 GB" }, "node": { "version": "v21.7.3", "env": "development" }, "packageManager": { "name": "npm", "version": "10.5.0" }, "frameworks": [ { "name": "next", "version": "^15.5.9" } ], "databases": null, "betterAuth": { "version": "Unknown", "config": null } } ``` ### Which area(s) are affected? (Select all that apply) Backend, Client ### Auth config (if applicable) ```typescript ``` ### Additional context Thank you for any help!
GiteaMirror added the lockedbug labels 2026-04-15 18:47:17 -05:00
GiteaMirror commented 2026-04-15 18:47:19 -05:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@better-auth-agent[bot] commented on GitHub (Feb 5, 2026):

It looks like you are encountering an issue with the accountss field in your Prisma select statement, which is not recognized in your users model. This indicates that there may have been a typo or an incorrect field name used when setting up your Prisma model. In your schema.prisma, the correct field name is accounts, not accountss [1].

When you enabled experimental joins in Better Auth, it seems that additional checks are performed which highlighted this issue. It’s also possible that experimental joins have not been fully maintained in some instances leading to errors such as the one you're facing [2].

To proceed, you should correct the field name in your select query from accountss to accounts. Additionally, you might consider checking your codebase to ensure consistency with naming conventions, especially since you mentioned issues post-migration from Supabase Auth.

If the problem persists after this change, or if you encounter further issues related to experimental joins, it might be beneficial to reach out directly to the Better Auth team by tagging them (@bekacru and @ping__) in your inquiries for more focused support.

Have you had a chance to implement the suggested changes, or do you have any other specific concerns you want to address?

If you need more help, tag @better-auth-agent in a comment so I can respond.

Diagram • Discord • GitHub

Diagram Join Star

<!-- gh-comment-id:3856604200 --> @better-auth-agent[bot] commented on GitHub (Feb 5, 2026): It looks like you are encountering an issue with the `accountss` field in your Prisma select statement, which is not recognized in your `users` model. This indicates that there may have been a typo or an incorrect field name used when setting up your Prisma model. In your `schema.prisma`, the correct field name is `accounts`, not `accountss` [[1]](https://github.com/better-auth/better-auth/issues/6200). When you enabled experimental joins in Better Auth, it seems that additional checks are performed which highlighted this issue. It’s also possible that experimental joins have not been fully maintained in some instances leading to errors such as the one you're facing [[2]](https://github.com/better-auth/better-auth/issues/6400). To proceed, you should correct the field name in your select query from `accountss` to `accounts`. Additionally, you might consider checking your codebase to ensure consistency with naming conventions, especially since you mentioned issues post-migration from Supabase Auth. If the problem persists after this change, or if you encounter further issues related to experimental joins, it might be beneficial to reach out directly to the Better Auth team by tagging them (@bekacru and @ping__) in your inquiries for more focused support. Have you had a chance to implement the suggested changes, or do you have any other specific concerns you want to address? _If you need more help, tag @better-auth-agent in a comment so I can respond._ <!-- bot:webhook reply v1 --> [Diagram](https://repodiagrams.s3.eu-north-1.amazonaws.com/better-auth_ultra_detailed_interactive.html) • [Discord](https://discord.gg/better-auth) • [GitHub](https://github.com/better-auth/better-auth) [![Diagram](https://img.shields.io/badge/Diagram-2b3137?style=flat-square)](https://repodiagrams.s3.eu-north-1.amazonaws.com/better-auth_ultra_detailed_interactive.html) [![Join](https://img.shields.io/badge/join-5865F2?logo=discord&logoColor=white&style=flat-square)](https://discord.gg/better-auth) [![Star](https://img.shields.io/badge/star-181717?logo=github&logoColor=white&style=flat-square)](https://github.com/better-auth/better-auth)
GiteaMirror commented 2026-04-15 18:47:19 -05:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

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

Hi @jparismorgan,

It seems related to this issue, I will check!

<!-- gh-comment-id:3858554028 --> @bytaesu commented on GitHub (Feb 6, 2026): Hi @jparismorgan, It seems related to this issue, I will check! - https://github.com/better-auth/better-auth/issues/7773
GiteaMirror commented 2026-04-15 18:47:22 -05:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@bytaesu commented on GitHub (Feb 8, 2026):

Note

There's an issue #7773 where plurals always get an "s" appended, but since the CLI and core logic operate symmetrically, it seems unrelated to this runtime issue.

Hi @jparismorgan,

I checked, and it seems you're using a custom schema instead of @better-auth/cli generate. Our approach is to use auth.ts as the single source of truth. Generating schema.prisma from it and matching the format will work fine.

You'll need to update schema.prisma whenever adding plugins or additional fields anyway 🤔

How about trying to modify schema.prisma? Are there specific reasons you absolutely cannot modify it?

<!-- gh-comment-id:3868259962 --> @bytaesu commented on GitHub (Feb 8, 2026): > [!NOTE] > There's an issue #7773 where plurals always get an "s" appended, but since the CLI and core logic operate symmetrically, it seems unrelated to this runtime issue. Hi @jparismorgan, I checked, and it seems you're using a custom schema instead of `@better-auth/cli generate`. Our approach is to use `auth.ts` as the single source of truth. Generating `schema.prisma` from it and matching the format will work fine. You'll need to update `schema.prisma` whenever adding plugins or additional fields anyway 🤔 How about trying to modify `schema.prisma`? Are there specific reasons you absolutely cannot modify it?
GiteaMirror commented 2026-04-15 18:47:25 -05:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jparismorgan commented on GitHub (Feb 8, 2026):

I'm coming over from using Supabase Auth and already have my schema.prisma defined and in production use. What exactly is the suggestion though, e.g. what will running @better-auth/cli generate do? Do I need to change from model users { to model user {?

<!-- gh-comment-id:3868395968 --> @jparismorgan commented on GitHub (Feb 8, 2026): I'm coming over from using Supabase Auth and already have my `schema.prisma` defined and in production use. What exactly is the suggestion though, e.g. what will running `@better-auth/cli generate` do? Do I need to change from `model users {` to `model user {`?
GiteaMirror commented 2026-04-15 18:47:28 -05:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@bytaesu commented on GitHub (Feb 8, 2026):

I'm coming over from using Supabase Auth and already have my schema.prisma defined and in production use. What exactly is the suggestion though, e.g. what will running @better-auth/cli generate do? Do I need to change from model users { to model user {?

Note

https://www.better-auth.com/docs/adapters/prisma#schema-generation--migration

This happens because the relation used as the join key differs between what the auth.ts instance expects and what's in schema.prisma. Could you compare it with what was generated?

I've used Supabase in production multiple times, so I can help. Feel free to let me know 🙂

<!-- gh-comment-id:3868425506 --> @bytaesu commented on GitHub (Feb 8, 2026): > I'm coming over from using Supabase Auth and already have my `schema.prisma` defined and in production use. What exactly is the suggestion though, e.g. what will running `@better-auth/cli generate` do? Do I need to change from `model users {` to `model user {`? > [!NOTE] > https://www.better-auth.com/docs/adapters/prisma#schema-generation--migration This happens because the relation used as the join key differs between what the `auth.ts` instance expects and what's in `schema.prisma`. Could you compare it with what was generated? I've used Supabase in production multiple times, so I can help. Feel free to let me know 🙂
GiteaMirror commented 2026-04-15 18:47:29 -05:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jparismorgan commented on GitHub (Feb 10, 2026):

Thanks! So this is what was generated:


generator client {
  provider = "prisma-client-js"
}

datasource db {
  provider = "postgresql"
  url      = env("DATABASE_URL")
}

model Users {
  id              String     @id
  name            String
  email           String
  emailVerified   Boolean    @default(false)
  image           String?
  createdAt       DateTime   @default(now())
  updatedAt       DateTime   @updatedAt
  bio             String?
  backgroundImage String?
  sessions        Sessions[]
  accounts        Accounts[]

  @@unique([email])
  @@map("users")
}

model Sessions {
  id        String   @id
  expiresAt DateTime
  token     String
  createdAt DateTime @default(now())
  updatedAt DateTime @updatedAt
  ipAddress String?
  userAgent String?
  userId    String
  users     Users    @relation(fields: [userId], references: [id], onDelete: Cascade)

  @@unique([token])
  @@index([userId])
  @@map("sessions")
}

model Accounts {
  id                    String    @id
  accountId             String
  providerId            String
  userId                String
  users                 Users     @relation(fields: [userId], references: [id], onDelete: Cascade)
  accessToken           String?
  refreshToken          String?
  idToken               String?
  accessTokenExpiresAt  DateTime?
  refreshTokenExpiresAt DateTime?
  scope                 String?
  password              String?
  createdAt             DateTime  @default(now())
  updatedAt             DateTime  @updatedAt

  @@index([userId])
  @@map("accounts")
}

model Verifications {
  id         String   @id
  identifier String
  value      String
  expiresAt  DateTime
  createdAt  DateTime @default(now())
  updatedAt  DateTime @updatedAt

  @@index([identifier])
  @@map("verifications")
}

And in the original message is what I currently have.

I tried changing my Schema from above to:

model Users {
 ...
  @@map("users")
}

...and the same pattern for Sessions, Accounts, and Verifications

And using usePlural: true and/or modelName: 'verification' along with experimental joins, but still get errors, e.g. Unknown field usersfor select statement on modelaccounts. Available options are marked with ?..

Based on the output, do you see how to configure schema.prisma + the configuration that would let me use experimental joins? Thanks so much!

<!-- gh-comment-id:3875742274 --> @jparismorgan commented on GitHub (Feb 10, 2026): Thanks! So this is what was generated: ``` generator client { provider = "prisma-client-js" } datasource db { provider = "postgresql" url = env("DATABASE_URL") } model Users { id String @id name String email String emailVerified Boolean @default(false) image String? createdAt DateTime @default(now()) updatedAt DateTime @updatedAt bio String? backgroundImage String? sessions Sessions[] accounts Accounts[] @@unique([email]) @@map("users") } model Sessions { id String @id expiresAt DateTime token String createdAt DateTime @default(now()) updatedAt DateTime @updatedAt ipAddress String? userAgent String? userId String users Users @relation(fields: [userId], references: [id], onDelete: Cascade) @@unique([token]) @@index([userId]) @@map("sessions") } model Accounts { id String @id accountId String providerId String userId String users Users @relation(fields: [userId], references: [id], onDelete: Cascade) accessToken String? refreshToken String? idToken String? accessTokenExpiresAt DateTime? refreshTokenExpiresAt DateTime? scope String? password String? createdAt DateTime @default(now()) updatedAt DateTime @updatedAt @@index([userId]) @@map("accounts") } model Verifications { id String @id identifier String value String expiresAt DateTime createdAt DateTime @default(now()) updatedAt DateTime @updatedAt @@index([identifier]) @@map("verifications") } ``` And in the original message is what I currently have. I tried changing my Schema from above to: ``` model Users { ... @@map("users") } ...and the same pattern for Sessions, Accounts, and Verifications ``` And using `usePlural: true` and/or `modelName: 'verification'` along with experimental joins, but still get errors, e.g. `Unknown field `users` for select statement on model `accounts`. Available options are marked with ?.`. Based on the output, do you see how to configure schema.prisma + the configuration that would let me use experimental joins? Thanks so much!
GiteaMirror commented 2026-04-15 18:47:30 -05:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@bytaesu commented on GitHub (Feb 17, 2026):

Hi @jparismorgan,

The point is that schemas generated via @better-auth/cli generate are fine since they're used symmetrically with our internal logic. However, when you customize them, the join relations no longer match.

At the moment, the reliable options are:

  • keep your current production schema and disable experimental.joins, or
  • switch fully to the generated plural schema pattern and keep naming fully aligned (including relation field names), using prismaAdapter(..., { usePlural: true }) with singular model keys in auth config (user/session/account/verification).
<!-- gh-comment-id:3912189473 --> @bytaesu commented on GitHub (Feb 17, 2026): Hi @jparismorgan, The point is that schemas generated via `@better-auth/cli generate` are fine since they're used symmetrically with our internal logic. However, when you customize them, the join relations no longer match. At the moment, the reliable options are: - keep your current production schema and disable `experimental.joins`, or - switch fully to the generated plural schema pattern and keep naming fully aligned (including relation field names), using `prismaAdapter(..., { usePlural: true })` with singular model keys in auth config (`user/session/account/verification`).
GiteaMirror commented 2026-04-15 18:47:30 -05:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@bytaesu commented on GitHub (Feb 17, 2026):

We’re aware of the duplicated "s" issue in the plural schemas. However, fixing it immediately could introduce a runtime breaking change. Since the CLI-generated schemas are symmetrical and work as expected, we’re planning to address this carefully rather than changing it right away.

<!-- gh-comment-id:3912194240 --> @bytaesu commented on GitHub (Feb 17, 2026): We’re aware of the duplicated "s" issue in the plural schemas. However, fixing it immediately could introduce a runtime breaking change. Since the CLI-generated schemas are symmetrical and work as expected, we’re planning to address this carefully rather than changing it right away.
GiteaMirror commented 2026-04-15 18:47:30 -05:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jparismorgan commented on GitHub (Mar 2, 2026):

Thanks, I updated to use the @@map("foo") approach and that fixed it.

<!-- gh-comment-id:3981850700 --> @jparismorgan commented on GitHub (Mar 2, 2026): Thanks, I updated to use the `@@map("foo")` approach and that fixed it.
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 bug locked
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#19546
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?