Testing new adapter - test if count is implemented #2293

New Issue

GiteaMirror · 2026-03-13T09:41:50-05:00

GiteaMirror commented

2026-03-13 09:41:50 -05:00

Originally created by @realtebo on GitHub (Nov 12, 2025).

Originally assigned to: @ping-maxwell on GitHub.

Is this suited for github?

Yes, this is suited for github

implementing a new adapter I can sucesfully past tests having

count: async ({
          model,
          where,
        }: {
          model: string;
          where?: Required<Where>[];
        }): Promise<number> => {
          console.log("count model:", model);
          console.log("count where:", where);
          // ...

          return -1;
        },

Describe the solution you'd like

add a new test

Describe alternatives you've considered

remove need for count if un needed

Additional context

No response

Originally created by @realtebo on GitHub (Nov 12, 2025). Originally assigned to: @ping-maxwell on GitHub. ### Is this suited for github? - [x] Yes, this is suited for github ### Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe. implementing a new adapter I can sucesfully past tests having ``` count: async ({ model, where, }: { model: string; where?: Required<Where>[]; }): Promise<number> => { console.log("count model:", model); console.log("count where:", where); // ... return -1; }, ``` ### Describe the solution you'd like add a new test ### Describe alternatives you've considered remove need for count if un needed ### Additional context _No response_

GiteaMirror added the adapter label 2026-03-13 09:41:50 -05:00

GiteaMirror commented

2026-03-13 09:41:51 -05:00

@better-auth-agent[bot] commented on GitHub (Nov 12, 2025):

It looks like you’re working on a new adapter and want to verify that the count implementation is tested correctly. I recommend creating a test file alongside your adapter source file. In that test, you can call the count function with dummy parameters, verify that the adapter logs the correct model and where conditions, and check that the returned value (currently –1) meets your expectations. For example, you can set up assertions to verify that the count is handled as intended and then later modify the count logic based on your requirements [1].

Are you planning to integrate this adapter test into your CI pipeline, or would you like any further guidance on structuring your tests? Tag @better-auth-agent if you would like an answer from the Agent.

Diagram • Discord • GitHub

@better-auth-agent[bot] commented on GitHub (Nov 12, 2025): It looks like you’re working on a new adapter and want to verify that the count implementation is tested correctly. I recommend creating a test file alongside your adapter source file. In that test, you can call the count function with dummy parameters, verify that the adapter logs the correct model and where conditions, and check that the returned value (currently –1) meets your expectations. For example, you can set up assertions to verify that the count is handled as intended and then later modify the count logic based on your requirements [[1]](https://www.better-auth.com/docs/reference/contributing). Are you planning to integrate this adapter test into your CI pipeline, or would you like any further guidance on structuring your tests? Tag @better-auth-agent if you would like an answer from the Agent.  [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

2026-03-13 09:41:51 -05:00

@realtebo commented on GitHub (Nov 12, 2025):

I am manually running

 npx vitest run ./better-auth-jwt-adapter.test.ts --bail 1

where the file contains, as per your doc

import { describe, afterAll } from "vitest";
import { runAdapterTest } from "better-auth/adapters/test";
import { BetterAuthJwtAdapter } from "./better-auth-jwt-adapter";

describe("My Adapter Tests", async () => {
  afterAll(async () => {
    // Run DB cleanup here...
  });
  const adapter = BetterAuthJwtAdapter({
    debugLogs: {
      // If your adapter config allows passing in debug logs, then pass this here.
      isRunningAdapterTests: true, // This is our super secret flag to let us know to only log debug logs if a test fails.
    },
  });
  await runAdapterTest({
    getAdapter: async (betterAuthOptions = {}) => {
      return adapter(betterAuthOptions);
    },
  });
});

@better-auth-agent all test passed even if my count function is not implemented

 Test Files  1 passed (1)
      Tests  25 passed | 2 skipped (27)
   Start at  16:38:23
   Duration  206ms (transform 39ms, setup 0ms, collect 94ms, tests 20ms, environment 0ms, prepare 2ms)

This is due the fact, dear my @better-auth-agent , that no test is currently implemented for the count method of an adapter

@realtebo commented on GitHub (Nov 12, 2025): I am manually running ``` npx vitest run ./better-auth-jwt-adapter.test.ts --bail 1 ``` where the file contains, as per your doc ``` import { describe, afterAll } from "vitest"; import { runAdapterTest } from "better-auth/adapters/test"; import { BetterAuthJwtAdapter } from "./better-auth-jwt-adapter"; describe("My Adapter Tests", async () => { afterAll(async () => { // Run DB cleanup here... }); const adapter = BetterAuthJwtAdapter({ debugLogs: { // If your adapter config allows passing in debug logs, then pass this here. isRunningAdapterTests: true, // This is our super secret flag to let us know to only log debug logs if a test fails. }, }); await runAdapterTest({ getAdapter: async (betterAuthOptions = {}) => { return adapter(betterAuthOptions); }, }); }); ``` @better-auth-agent all test passed even if my `count` function is not implemented ``` Test Files 1 passed (1) Tests 25 passed | 2 skipped (27) Start at 16:38:23 Duration 206ms (transform 39ms, setup 0ms, collect 94ms, tests 20ms, environment 0ms, prepare 2ms) ``` This is due the fact, dear my @better-auth-agent , that no test is currently implemented for the `count` method of an adapter

GiteaMirror commented

2026-03-13 09:41:51 -05:00

@better-auth-agent[bot] commented on GitHub (Nov 12, 2025):

Hi there! It looks like your tests are passing because there isn’t any test asserting the behavior of the count function. Essentially, since no test is checking for count’s output, even a stubbed implementation that simply returns –1 will pass. To move forward, you have a couple of options:

• Add a custom test case for the count method that verifies its expected behavior (for example, returning the correct number based on provided filters). This way, any future changes to count will be caught.

• If count isn’t needed for your use case, consider removing it from your adapter’s interface and update your test suite accordingly.

Which approach would work best for your adapter’s design? Tag @better-auth-agent if you would like an answer from the Agent.

Diagram • Discord • GitHub

@better-auth-agent[bot] commented on GitHub (Nov 12, 2025): Hi there! It looks like your tests are passing because there isn’t any test asserting the behavior of the count function. Essentially, since no test is checking for count’s output, even a stubbed implementation that simply returns –1 will pass. To move forward, you have a couple of options: • Add a custom test case for the count method that verifies its expected behavior (for example, returning the correct number based on provided filters). This way, any future changes to count will be caught. • If count isn’t needed for your use case, consider removing it from your adapter’s interface and update your test suite accordingly. Which approach would work best for your adapter’s design? Tag @better-auth-agent if you would like an answer from the Agent.  [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

2026-03-13 09:41:51 -05:00

@realtebo commented on GitHub (Nov 12, 2025):

@better-auth-agent

Please, add a custom test case for the count method that verifies its expected behavior (for example, returning the correct number based on provided filters). This way, any future changes to count will be caught.

Add this to your project, not to mine

@realtebo commented on GitHub (Nov 12, 2025): @better-auth-agent Please, add a custom test case for the count method that verifies its expected behavior (for example, returning the correct number based on provided filters). This way, any future changes to count will be caught. Add this to your project, not to mine

GiteaMirror commented

2026-03-13 09:41:52 -05:00

@better-auth-agent[bot] commented on GitHub (Nov 12, 2025):

Hello there! To ensure your new adapter’s count method is well covered, you can add a dedicated test case that does the following:

• Call the count method with specific model names and filter objects as input.
• Verify that the console logs the expected parameters (model and where).
• Assert that the returned value matches the expected output (e.g., –1, if that is what you intend as a placeholder).

Following our testing best practices, remember to place the test file alongside its source file and include clear commit messages when you add your test case [1]. Have you set up your testing environment with vitest? Tag @bekacru and @ping__ if you’d like further assistance, and tag @better-auth-agent if you would like an answer from the Agent. What additional tests or behaviors would you like to verify for your adapter?

Diagram • Discord • GitHub

@better-auth-agent[bot] commented on GitHub (Nov 12, 2025): Hello there! To ensure your new adapter’s count method is well covered, you can add a dedicated test case that does the following: • Call the count method with specific model names and filter objects as input. • Verify that the console logs the expected parameters (model and where). • Assert that the returned value matches the expected output (e.g., –1, if that is what you intend as a placeholder). Following our testing best practices, remember to place the test file alongside its source file and include clear commit messages when you add your test case [[1]](https://www.better-auth.com/docs/reference/contributing). Have you set up your testing environment with vitest? Tag @bekacru and @ping__ if you’d like further assistance, and tag @better-auth-agent if you would like an answer from the Agent. What additional tests or behaviors would you like to verify for your adapter?  [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

2026-03-13 09:41:52 -05:00

@realtebo commented on GitHub (Nov 12, 2025):

@better-auth-agent

add label 'test'

@realtebo commented on GitHub (Nov 12, 2025): @better-auth-agent add label 'test'

GiteaMirror commented

2026-03-13 09:41:52 -05:00

@better-auth-agent[bot] commented on GitHub (Nov 12, 2025):

Thanks for reaching out! To address this issue, please ensure that your adapter’s count method is properly integrated into your test suite. Here are some next steps:

• Confirm that your test file is placed next to your source file (following our best practices for test file structure) so that it picks up the adapter implementation automatically [1].

• In your test, invoke the count method with a sample model and where clause to validate that it logs the expected values (“count model:” and “count where:”) and returns the correct count. For troubleshooting, if the adapter returns –1 (as in your current implementation), verify that this is the intended behavior or adjust the code accordingly.

• Since your issue requests to “add label ‘test’”, we’ve added the label for you.

Does this clarify the next steps for you? Feel free to tag @bekacru or @ping__ if you need further input, and tag @better-auth-agent if you would like an answer from the Agent. What additional questions can we help with regarding your adapter implementation?

Diagram • Discord • GitHub

@better-auth-agent[bot] commented on GitHub (Nov 12, 2025): Thanks for reaching out! To address this issue, please ensure that your adapter’s count method is properly integrated into your test suite. Here are some next steps: • Confirm that your test file is placed next to your source file (following our best practices for test file structure) so that it picks up the adapter implementation automatically [[1]](https://www.better-auth.com/docs/reference/contributing). • In your test, invoke the count method with a sample model and where clause to validate that it logs the expected values (“count model:” and “count where:”) and returns the correct count. For troubleshooting, if the adapter returns –1 (as in your current implementation), verify that this is the intended behavior or adjust the code accordingly. • Since your issue requests to “add label ‘test’”, we’ve added the label for you. Does this clarify the next steps for you? Feel free to tag @bekacru or @ping__ if you need further input, and tag @better-auth-agent if you would like an answer from the Agent. What additional questions can we help with regarding your adapter implementation?  [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

2026-03-13 09:41:53 -05:00

@GautamBytes commented on GitHub (Nov 13, 2025):

working on it !!

@GautamBytes commented on GitHub (Nov 13, 2025): working on it !!

GiteaMirror commented

2026-03-13 09:41:53 -05:00

@GautamBytes commented on GitHub (Nov 13, 2025):

Hey, thanks for reporting this!

I checked and found that normalTestSuite (in packages/better-auth/src/adapters/tests/normal.ts) already has tests that validate count returns the correct number:

"count - should count many models" (line 1374)
"count - should return 0 with no rows to count" (line 1389)
"count - should count with where clause" (line 1401)

These should fail if count returns -1.

Could you share:

Which test suite you're running?
Your adapter's test setup code?

This will help me understand if:

There's a gap in test coverage I need to fix, OR
You need to include normalTestSuite in your adapter tests

@GautamBytes commented on GitHub (Nov 13, 2025): Hey, thanks for reporting this! I checked and found that `normalTestSuite` (in `packages/better-auth/src/adapters/tests/normal.ts`) already has tests that validate count returns the correct number: - "count - should count many models" (line 1374) - "count - should return 0 with no rows to count" (line 1389) - "count - should count with where clause" (line 1401) These should fail if count returns -1. **Could you share:** 1. Which test suite you're running? 2. Your adapter's test setup code? This will help me understand if: - There's a gap in test coverage I need to fix, OR - You need to include `normalTestSuite` in your adapter tests

GiteaMirror commented

2026-03-13 09:41:53 -05:00

@realtebo commented on GitHub (Nov 13, 2025):

I am running

npx vitest run src/db/better-auth-jwt-adapter.test.ts --bail 1

Please ignore the name, it's not jwt related at all

import { describe, afterAll } from "vitest";
import { runAdapterTest } from "better-auth/adapters/test";
import { promises as fs } from "fs";
import {
  BetterAuthJwtAdapter,
  getSessionDbFilePath,
} from "./better-auth-jwt-adapter";

describe("My Adapter Tests", async () => {
  const sessionFile = getSessionDbFilePath();

  afterAll(async () => {
    await fs.rm(sessionFile, { force: true });
  });

  const adapter = BetterAuthJwtAdapter({
    debugLogs: {
      // If your adapter config allows passing in debug logs, then pass this here.
      isRunningAdapterTests: true, // This is our super secret flag to let us know to only log debug logs if a test fails.
    },
  });
  await runAdapterTest({
    getAdapter: async (betterAuthOptions = {}) => {
      return adapter(betterAuthOptions);
    },
  });
});

 ✓ src/db/better-auth-jwt-adapter.test.ts (27 tests | 2 skipped) 39ms
   ✓ My Adapter Tests (27)
     ✓ create model 7ms
     ✓ create model should always return an id 2ms
     ✓ find model 1ms
     ✓ find model without id 1ms
     ✓ find model with modified field name 2ms
     ✓ find model with select 0ms
     ✓ update model 1ms
     ✓ should find many 1ms
     ✓ should find many with where 2ms
     ✓ should find many with operators 1ms
     ✓ should find many with not in operator 2ms
     ✓ should work with reference fields 2ms
     ✓ should find many with sortBy 2ms
     ✓ should find many with limit 0ms
     ✓ should find many with offset 0ms
     ✓ should update with multiple where 1ms
     ✓ delete model 1ms
     ✓ should delete many 4ms
     ✓ shouldn't throw on delete record not found 1ms
     ✓ shouldn't throw on record not found 0ms
     ✓ should find many with contains operator 0ms
     ✓ should search users with startsWith 3ms
     ✓ should search users with endsWith 1ms
     ✓ should prefer generateId if provided 1ms
     ↓ should rollback failing transaction 0ms [Skipping test: Better Auth Jwt Adapter
					 does not support transactions]
     ↓ should return transaction result 0ms [Skipping test: Better Auth Jwt Adapter
					 does not support transactions]
     ✓ should find many with connectors 2ms

Found doc here: https://www.better-auth.com/docs/guides/create-a-db-adapter

@realtebo commented on GitHub (Nov 13, 2025): I am running ``` npx vitest run src/db/better-auth-jwt-adapter.test.ts --bail 1 ``` Please ignore the name, it's not jwt related at all ``` import { describe, afterAll } from "vitest"; import { runAdapterTest } from "better-auth/adapters/test"; import { promises as fs } from "fs"; import { BetterAuthJwtAdapter, getSessionDbFilePath, } from "./better-auth-jwt-adapter"; describe("My Adapter Tests", async () => { const sessionFile = getSessionDbFilePath(); afterAll(async () => { await fs.rm(sessionFile, { force: true }); }); const adapter = BetterAuthJwtAdapter({ debugLogs: { // If your adapter config allows passing in debug logs, then pass this here. isRunningAdapterTests: true, // This is our super secret flag to let us know to only log debug logs if a test fails. }, }); await runAdapterTest({ getAdapter: async (betterAuthOptions = {}) => { return adapter(betterAuthOptions); }, }); }); ``` ``` ✓ src/db/better-auth-jwt-adapter.test.ts (27 tests | 2 skipped) 39ms ✓ My Adapter Tests (27) ✓ create model 7ms ✓ create model should always return an id 2ms ✓ find model 1ms ✓ find model without id 1ms ✓ find model with modified field name 2ms ✓ find model with select 0ms ✓ update model 1ms ✓ should find many 1ms ✓ should find many with where 2ms ✓ should find many with operators 1ms ✓ should find many with not in operator 2ms ✓ should work with reference fields 2ms ✓ should find many with sortBy 2ms ✓ should find many with limit 0ms ✓ should find many with offset 0ms ✓ should update with multiple where 1ms ✓ delete model 1ms ✓ should delete many 4ms ✓ shouldn't throw on delete record not found 1ms ✓ shouldn't throw on record not found 0ms ✓ should find many with contains operator 0ms ✓ should search users with startsWith 3ms ✓ should search users with endsWith 1ms ✓ should prefer generateId if provided 1ms ↓ should rollback failing transaction 0ms [Skipping test: Better Auth Jwt Adapter does not support transactions] ↓ should return transaction result 0ms [Skipping test: Better Auth Jwt Adapter does not support transactions] ✓ should find many with connectors 2ms ``` Found doc here: https://www.better-auth.com/docs/guides/create-a-db-adapter

GiteaMirror commented

2026-03-13 09:41:54 -05:00

@realtebo commented on GitHub (Nov 13, 2025):

Also

stderr | src/db/better-auth-jwt-adapter.test.ts
This test function is deprecated and will be removed in the future. Use `testAdapter` instead.

Probably doc is outdated

@realtebo commented on GitHub (Nov 13, 2025): Also ``` stderr | src/db/better-auth-jwt-adapter.test.ts This test function is deprecated and will be removed in the future. Use `testAdapter` instead. ``` Probably doc is outdated

GiteaMirror commented

2026-03-13 09:41:54 -05:00

@GautamBytes commented on GitHub (Nov 13, 2025):

Yeah , That's our old, deprecated test runner.
The normalTestSuite is the one that has the proper count tests . As soon as you switch to this new testAdapter setup, your adapter's -1 return value will fail the test exactly as you expected.

@GautamBytes commented on GitHub (Nov 13, 2025): Yeah , That's our old, deprecated test runner. The [normalTestSuite](https://github.com/better-auth/better-auth/blob/canary/packages/better-auth/src/adapters/tests/normal.ts) is the one that has the proper count tests . As soon as you switch to this new testAdapter setup, your adapter's -1 return value will fail the test exactly as you expected.

GiteaMirror commented

2026-03-13 09:41:54 -05:00

@realtebo commented on GitHub (Nov 13, 2025):

currently,

node_modules/better-auth/dist/adapters/test.d.ts

doesn't include it

I've

"better-auth": "^1.3.34",

@realtebo commented on GitHub (Nov 13, 2025): currently, ``` node_modules/better-auth/dist/adapters/test.d.ts ``` doesn't include it I've ``` "better-auth": "^1.3.34", ```

GiteaMirror commented

2026-03-13 09:41:55 -05:00

@GautamBytes commented on GitHub (Nov 13, 2025):

hmm , it might be fixed in upcoming 1.4 cc: @ping-maxwell

@GautamBytes commented on GitHub (Nov 13, 2025): hmm , it might be fixed in upcoming 1.4 cc: @ping-maxwell

GiteaMirror commented

2026-03-13 09:41:56 -05:00

@ping-maxwell commented on GitHub (Nov 14, 2025):

Yeah I'll export it, it wasn't built in mind to be used outside of BA so there might be issues, but we can see how it goes.

@ping-maxwell commented on GitHub (Nov 14, 2025): Yeah I'll export it, it wasn't built in mind to be used outside of BA so there might be issues, but we can see how it goes.

GiteaMirror commented

2026-03-13 09:41:57 -05:00

@ping-maxwell commented on GitHub (Jan 8, 2026):

Hey sorry for late update, this will be exported under this PR: https://github.com/better-auth/better-auth/pull/6913

@ping-maxwell commented on GitHub (Jan 8, 2026): Hey sorry for late update, this will be exported under this PR: https://github.com/better-auth/better-auth/pull/6913

GiteaMirror referenced this issue

2026-04-13 04:29:18 -05:00

[GH-ISSUE #2293] Request Slack social provider #9135

GiteaMirror referenced this issue

2026-04-15 16:03:53 -05:00

[GH-ISSUE #2293] Request Slack social provider #17766

GiteaMirror referenced this issue

2026-04-17 17:02:51 -05:00

[GH-ISSUE #2293] Request Slack social provider #26458

Sign in to join this conversation.

Branches Tags

2026-05-22/chore/adopt-agents-md

2026-05-22/refactor/string-case-utils

dependabot/npm_and_yarn/uuid-14.0.0

dependabot/npm_and_yarn/turbo-2.9.14

changeset-release/main

main

2026-05-14/fix/passkey-verify-error-and-claim

dependabot/npm_and_yarn/samlify-2.13.0

dependabot/npm_and_yarn/ws-8.20.1

changeset-release/next

dependabot/npm_and_yarn/demo/electron/demo-minor-patch-519ef7475f

dependabot/github_actions/github-actions-98f3470200

client-assertions-main

2026-05-15/ci/fix-sqlite-abi-mismatch

2026-05-15/fix/organization-team-add-cascade

2026-05-15/fix/parse-set-cookie-value-validation

2026-05-13/feat/captcha-wildcard-endpoints

2026-05-13/ci/stabilize-docker-startup

fix/i18n-before-hook-translation

fix/disable-migration-generate

2026-05-07/fix/admin-set-password-upsert

2026-05-10/fix/cookie-drain-order

2026-05-10/feat/hooks-finally

2026-05-09/fix/cookie-drain-order

2026-05-09/feat/hooks-finally

2026-05-08/feat/register-before-send

fix/stripe/subscription-data-merge

2026-05-01/chore/pnpm-v11-harden

chore/pnpm-v11

2026-04-29/feat/google-include-granted-scopes

2026-04-29/fix/oauth-account-scope-semantics

2026-04-27/fix/nextcookies-idempotent-writes

2026-04-26/fix/harden-proxy-host-validation

2026-04-26/refactor/stripe-callback-signature-cleanup

2026-04-26/fix/stripe-subscription-callback-timing

2026-04-11/fix/sveltekit-app-modules

feat/open-api-zod-contract

feat/oauth-provider-backchannel-logout-next

feat/oauth-idp-initiated-bounce

refactor/sign-in-challenges

2026-04-21/fix/oauth-rfc-input-validation

fix/release-notes-new-packages

fix/two-factor-identity-guard

fix/resource

feat/emailpassword-authorize

2026-04-12/security/dynamic-baseurl-proxy-trust-default

feat/oauth-provider-at-hash-v2

fix/release-grep-fallback

claude/address-review-comments-JhFLr

claude/slack-update-stripe-docs-consistency-8Sc0w

feat/async-auth

fix/two-factor-totp-verified-enrollment

feat/plugin-ui

codex/blog-1-6-release-post

2026-04-06/fix/type-any-guards

2026-04-05/chore/downgrade-better-call

2026-04-04/ci/skip-vercel-fork-prs

2026-03-28/ci/add-autofix-ci

chore/release-preview-script

himself65/2026/02/19/role

2026-03-24/fix/update-user-info-on-link

2026-03-20/docs/improve-website

2026-03-20/fix/anonymous-onlinkaccount-expo

2026-02-17/fix/anonymous-link-state

fix/8607-saml-inresponseto

fix/8549-scim-patch-noop

v1.4.x

refactor/migration-snapshot-tests

worktree-magic-link-additional-data

chore/migrate-build-to-rollup

worktree-fix-dynamic-baseurl-8447

2026-03-06/chore/public-api-check

fix/close-8156-regression-test

fix/secondary-storage-json-error-handling

himself65/verification-namespace

cursor/issue-8307-validation-79a3

himself65/2026/01/30/error-mdx

v1.4.x-staging

fix/email-otp-user

fix/restrict-full-organization-access-roles

himself65/2026/02/12/count

himself65/2026/02/04/define-plugin

2026-02-04/feat/add-pluralize

cursor/better-auth-js-integration-ec21

cursor/expo-state-mismatch-394c

2026-02-01/fix/org-update-role-sync-members

cursor/issue-7607-investigation-e146

cursor/email-generation-helper-0ff6

himself65/2026/01/21/avoid-spread-operator

himself65/2026/01/14/cli

claude/slack-add-docs-pr-NMvgO

claude/slack-add-advanced-useplural-WHKYL

feat/hooks-pos

feat/2fa-phone

feat/2fa

fix/rotation

fix/username-check

v1.3.x

refactor/organization

feat/multiple-client-ids-social-providers

1 Participants

Notifications

Due Date

No due date set.

Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference: github-starred/better-auth#2293

Testing new adapter - test if count is implemented #2293

Is this suited for github?

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

Describe the solution you'd like

Describe alternatives you've considered

Additional context

Testing new adapter - test if `count` is implemented #2293