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

[Stripe Plugin] Feature Request: Plan limits should support diverse types (not just numbers) #2044

New Issue
Closed
opened 2026-03-13 09:22:50 -05:00 by GiteaMirror · 3 comments
GiteaMirror commented 2026-03-13 09:22:50 -05:00
Owner
Copy Link

Originally created by @MickeyKay on GitHub (Sep 30, 2025).

Is this suited for github?

  • Yes, this is suited for github

Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.

Stripe plan limits are currently typed as Record<string, number> (reference).

This makes sense from the perspective of pure numeric limits (e.g. maxResources: 5), however there are at least a few other use cases that make much more sense for non-numeric values (e.g. supportedRequestMethods: ['HEAD', 'GET', 'POST']).

Is there any reason the limits type definition couldn't be expanded to Record<string, any>?

Describe the solution you'd like

Based on my digging (and @dosu 's help), it sure looks like plan limits are not integrated in any way with Stripe functionality, nor seem to have any integration with core Better Auth functionality. Rather it seems they are simply a convenience to help developers define some of their plan-dependent business functionality within the same plan definition that is used to integrate with Stripe. If this is indeed the case, it seems like expanding the type definition would be completely backwards compatible, and would enable folks like myself to continue using the limits feature provided by Better Auth, instead of having to keep a parallel planLimits definition of my own with more flexible limit/feature type definitions.

Describe alternatives you've considered

At present, I'm doing the following, which is problematic for a few reasons:

limits: {
  requestMethodHEAD: 1,
  requestMethodGET: 1,
  requestMethodPOST: 1,
},
  1. It requires referencing each limit individually, as opposed to a grouped set of related values within a single limit definition (e.g. can't do limits.requestMethods.includes(...)
  2. It is cumbersome when scaling to LOTS of supported values

Additional context

No response

Originally created by @MickeyKay on GitHub (Sep 30, 2025). ### Is this suited for github? - [x] Yes, this is suited for github ### Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe. Stripe plan limits are currently typed as `Record<string, number>` ([reference](https://github.com/better-auth/better-auth/blob/main/packages/stripe/src/types.ts#L43)). This makes sense from the perspective of pure numeric limits (e.g. `maxResources: 5`), however there are at least a few other use cases that make much more sense for non-numeric values (e.g. `supportedRequestMethods: ['HEAD', 'GET', 'POST']`). Is there any reason the `limits` type definition couldn't be expanded to `Record<string, any>`? ### Describe the solution you'd like Based on my digging (and @dosu 's help), it sure looks like plan `limits` are _not_ integrated in any way with Stripe functionality, nor seem to have any integration with core Better Auth functionality. Rather it seems they are simply a convenience to help developers define some of their plan-dependent business functionality within the same plan definition that is used to integrate with Stripe. If this is indeed the case, it seems like expanding the type definition would be completely backwards compatible, and would enable folks like myself to continue using the `limits` feature provided by Better Auth, instead of having to keep a parallel `planLimits` definition of my own with more flexible limit/feature type definitions. ### Describe alternatives you've considered At present, I'm doing the following, which is problematic for a few reasons: ``` limits: { requestMethodHEAD: 1, requestMethodGET: 1, requestMethodPOST: 1, }, ``` 1. It requires referencing each limit individually, as opposed to a grouped set of related values within a single limit definition (e.g. can't do `limits.requestMethods.includes(...)` 2. It is cumbersome when scaling to LOTS of supported values ### Additional context _No response_
GiteaMirror added the enhancement label 2026-03-13 09:22:50 -05:00
GiteaMirror commented 2026-03-13 09:22:52 -05:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@dosubot[bot] commented on GitHub (Sep 30, 2025):

There’s no technical or architectural reason the Stripe plan limits type needs to stay as Record<string, number>. The codebase treats limits as a developer convenience—it's just attached to plan objects and passed through API responses, with no logic that assumes numeric values or enforces any structure beyond the type annotation itself. There’s no integration with Stripe or core Better Auth features that would be affected by making this more flexible. Expanding the type to Record<string, any> is safe and backwards compatible based on current usage, and would make it much easier to group related values or support non-numeric limits as you described. The only caveat is that if you or others rely on numeric-only logic, you’ll want to add your own type guards or validation after the change. This update would improve flexibility and scalability for plan configuration without breaking existing functionality.
Reference: StripePlan type definition and usage

To reply, just mention @dosu.

How did I do? Good | Irrelevant | Incorrect | Verbose | Hallucination | Report 🐛 | Other  Chat with Dosu Join Discord Share on X

@dosubot[bot] commented on GitHub (Sep 30, 2025): <!-- Answer --> There’s no technical or architectural reason the Stripe plan `limits` type needs to stay as `Record<string, number>`. The codebase treats `limits` as a developer convenience—it's just attached to plan objects and passed through API responses, with no logic that assumes numeric values or enforces any structure beyond the type annotation itself. There’s no integration with Stripe or core Better Auth features that would be affected by making this more flexible. Expanding the type to `Record<string, any>` is safe and backwards compatible based on current usage, and would make it much easier to group related values or support non-numeric limits as you described. The only caveat is that if you or others rely on numeric-only logic, you’ll want to add your own type guards or validation after the change. This update would improve flexibility and scalability for plan configuration without breaking existing functionality. [Reference: StripePlan type definition and usage](https://github.com/better-auth/better-auth/blob/f6cbdcc84ee5d2971fdcc8b23ff7c174f88cf45b/packages/stripe/src/types.ts) <!-- Dosu Comment Footer --> *To reply, just mention [@dosu](https://go.dosu.dev/dosubot).* --- <sup>How did I do? [Good](https://app.dosu.dev/response-feedback/bf8591b0-1d2f-46f2-b199-7526c99555ad?feedback_type=great_response) | [Irrelevant](https://app.dosu.dev/response-feedback/bf8591b0-1d2f-46f2-b199-7526c99555ad?feedback_type=irrelevant_answer) | [Incorrect](https://app.dosu.dev/response-feedback/bf8591b0-1d2f-46f2-b199-7526c99555ad?feedback_type=incorrect_sources) | [Verbose](https://app.dosu.dev/response-feedback/bf8591b0-1d2f-46f2-b199-7526c99555ad?feedback_type=too_verbose) | [Hallucination](https://app.dosu.dev/response-feedback/bf8591b0-1d2f-46f2-b199-7526c99555ad?feedback_type=hallucination) | [Report 🐛](https://app.dosu.dev/response-feedback/bf8591b0-1d2f-46f2-b199-7526c99555ad?feedback_type=bug_report) | [Other](https://app.dosu.dev/response-feedback/bf8591b0-1d2f-46f2-b199-7526c99555ad?feedback_type=other)</sup>&nbsp;&nbsp;[![Chat with Dosu](https://dosu.dev/dosu-chat-badge.svg)](https://app.dosu.dev/cdda13d9-dd27-4d31-b09a-5d8bec92de21/ask?utm_source=github)&nbsp;[![Join Discord](https://img.shields.io/badge/join-5865F2?logo=discord&logoColor=white&label=)](https://go.dosu.dev/discord-bot)&nbsp;[![Share on X](https://img.shields.io/badge/X-share-black)](https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=%40dosu_ai%20helped%20me%20solve%20this%20issue!&url=https%3A//github.com/better-auth/better-auth/issues/4977)
GiteaMirror commented 2026-03-13 09:22:52 -05:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@MickeyKay commented on GitHub (Sep 30, 2025):

@dosu Great, what's the next step to have this considered for feature development?

@MickeyKay commented on GitHub (Sep 30, 2025): @dosu Great, what's the next step to have this considered for feature development?
GiteaMirror commented 2026-03-13 09:22:52 -05:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@dosubot[bot] commented on GitHub (Sep 30, 2025):

There’s no published workflow or official process for feature request triage in Better Auth, but your request is now visible to maintainers and will be considered as part of their review and prioritization process. To help move things forward, you can add more context—such as additional use cases, implementation ideas, or examples of how this change would benefit real projects. Keep an eye on this thread for any follow-up questions or feedback from maintainers, and be ready to clarify or discuss as needed.

To reply, just mention @dosu.

How did I do? Good | Irrelevant | Incorrect | Verbose | Hallucination | Report 🐛 | Other  Chat with Dosu Join Discord Share on X

@dosubot[bot] commented on GitHub (Sep 30, 2025): <!-- Answer --> There’s no published workflow or official process for feature request triage in Better Auth, but your request is now visible to maintainers and will be considered as part of their review and prioritization process. To help move things forward, you can add more context—such as additional use cases, implementation ideas, or examples of how this change would benefit real projects. Keep an eye on this thread for any follow-up questions or feedback from maintainers, and be ready to clarify or discuss as needed. <!-- Dosu Comment Footer --> *To reply, just mention [@dosu](https://go.dosu.dev/dosubot).* --- <sup>How did I do? [Good](https://app.dosu.dev/response-feedback/17e7e6be-9f21-48e6-9762-3199a501ffc9?feedback_type=great_response) | [Irrelevant](https://app.dosu.dev/response-feedback/17e7e6be-9f21-48e6-9762-3199a501ffc9?feedback_type=irrelevant_answer) | [Incorrect](https://app.dosu.dev/response-feedback/17e7e6be-9f21-48e6-9762-3199a501ffc9?feedback_type=incorrect_sources) | [Verbose](https://app.dosu.dev/response-feedback/17e7e6be-9f21-48e6-9762-3199a501ffc9?feedback_type=too_verbose) | [Hallucination](https://app.dosu.dev/response-feedback/17e7e6be-9f21-48e6-9762-3199a501ffc9?feedback_type=hallucination) | [Report 🐛](https://app.dosu.dev/response-feedback/17e7e6be-9f21-48e6-9762-3199a501ffc9?feedback_type=bug_report) | [Other](https://app.dosu.dev/response-feedback/17e7e6be-9f21-48e6-9762-3199a501ffc9?feedback_type=other)</sup>&nbsp;&nbsp;[![Chat with Dosu](https://dosu.dev/dosu-chat-badge.svg)](https://app.dosu.dev/cdda13d9-dd27-4d31-b09a-5d8bec92de21/ask?utm_source=github)&nbsp;[![Join Discord](https://img.shields.io/badge/join-5865F2?logo=discord&logoColor=white&label=)](https://go.dosu.dev/discord-bot)&nbsp;[![Share on X](https://img.shields.io/badge/X-share-black)](https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=%40dosu_ai%20helped%20me%20solve%20this%20issue!&url=https%3A//github.com/better-auth/better-auth/issues/4977)
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 enhancement
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#2044
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?