github-starred/better-auth
2
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/better-auth/better-auth.git synced 2026-05-23 07:18:56 -05:00
Code Issues 2.5k Packages Projects Releases 112 Wiki Activity

Suggestion About "Setup Invitation Email" Docs #2461

New Issue
Open
opened 2026-03-13 09:56:15 -05:00 by GiteaMirror · 2 comments
GiteaMirror commented 2026-03-13 09:56:15 -05:00
Owner
Copy Link

Originally created by @JeffreyLind3 on GitHub (Dec 5, 2025).

In https://www.better-auth.com/docs/plugins/organization we have the following example:

import { betterAuth } from "better-auth";
import { organization } from "better-auth/plugins";
import { sendOrganizationInvitation } from "./email";
export const auth = betterAuth({
  plugins: [
    organization({
      async sendInvitationEmail(data) {
        const inviteLink = `https://example.com/accept-invitation/${data.id}`;
        sendOrganizationInvitation({
          email: data.email,
          invitedByUsername: data.inviter.user.name,
          invitedByEmail: data.inviter.user.email,
          teamName: data.organization.name,
          inviteLink,
        });
      },
    }),
  ],
});

Semantically, wouldn't it be more canonical to construct inviteLink via a search parameter instead of a dynamic route, similar to how the reset password docs in https://www.better-auth.com/docs/authentication/email-password are?

Originally created by @JeffreyLind3 on GitHub (Dec 5, 2025). In `https://www.better-auth.com/docs/plugins/organization` we have the following example: ```typescript import { betterAuth } from "better-auth"; import { organization } from "better-auth/plugins"; import { sendOrganizationInvitation } from "./email"; export const auth = betterAuth({ plugins: [ organization({ async sendInvitationEmail(data) { const inviteLink = `https://example.com/accept-invitation/${data.id}`; sendOrganizationInvitation({ email: data.email, invitedByUsername: data.inviter.user.name, invitedByEmail: data.inviter.user.email, teamName: data.organization.name, inviteLink, }); }, }), ], }); ``` Semantically, wouldn't it be more canonical to construct inviteLink via a search parameter instead of a dynamic route, similar to how the reset password docs in ```https://www.better-auth.com/docs/authentication/email-password``` are?
GiteaMirror added the staledocumentation labels 2026-03-13 09:56:15 -05:00
GiteaMirror commented 2026-03-13 09:56:16 -05:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@better-auth-agent[bot] commented on GitHub (Dec 5, 2025):

Thanks for your suggestion! The current example uses a dynamic route, but you’re right that using a query parameter—like the reset password flow—could be more canonical for consistency in our docs. We appreciate the feedback and will review this with the team to see if aligning the invitation link construction with the reset password pattern might offer clearer semantics without impacting routing functionality. Could you share if you encountered any specific issues with the dynamic route approach, or is this mainly a preference for consistency? tag @better-auth-agent if you would like an answer from the Agent

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

Diagram • Discord • GitHub

Diagram Join Star

@better-auth-agent[bot] commented on GitHub (Dec 5, 2025): Thanks for your suggestion! The current example uses a dynamic route, but you’re right that using a query parameter—like the reset password flow—could be more canonical for consistency in our docs. We appreciate the feedback and will review this with the team to see if aligning the invitation link construction with the reset password pattern might offer clearer semantics without impacting routing functionality. Could you share if you encountered any specific issues with the dynamic route approach, or is this mainly a preference for consistency? tag @better-auth-agent if you would like an answer from the Agent _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/skyvern_ultra_detailed_interactive.html) • [Discord](https://discord.gg/fG2XXEuQX3) • [GitHub](https://github.com/Skyvern-AI/Skyvern) [![Diagram](https://img.shields.io/badge/Diagram-2b3137?style=flat-square)](https://repodiagrams.s3.eu-north-1.amazonaws.com/skyvern_ultra_detailed_interactive.html) [![Join](https://img.shields.io/badge/join-5865F2?logo=discord&logoColor=white&style=flat-square)](https://discord.gg/fG2XXEuQX3) [![Star](https://img.shields.io/badge/star-181717?logo=github&logoColor=white&style=flat-square)](https://github.com/Skyvern-AI/Skyvern)
GiteaMirror commented 2026-03-13 09:56:17 -05:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@dosubot[bot] commented on GitHub (Mar 6, 2026):

Hi, @JeffreyLind3. I'm Dosu, and I'm helping the better-auth team manage their backlog and am marking this issue as stale.

Issue Summary:

  • You suggested updating the "Setup Invitation Email" docs to use a query parameter for the inviteLink instead of a dynamic route.
  • This change aims to align the invitation email docs with the reset password docs for better semantic consistency.
  • The maintainer acknowledged the suggestion and sees potential clarity improvements.
  • They planned to review the proposal with the team but have not provided further updates.
  • No resolution or decision has been made yet.

Next Steps:

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

Thanks for your understanding and contribution!

@dosubot[bot] commented on GitHub (Mar 6, 2026): Hi, @JeffreyLind3. 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 suggested updating the "Setup Invitation Email" docs to use a query parameter for the inviteLink instead of a dynamic route. - This change aims to align the invitation email docs with the reset password docs for better semantic consistency. - The maintainer acknowledged the suggestion and sees potential clarity improvements. - They planned to review the proposal with the team but have not provided further updates. - No resolution or decision has been made yet. **Next Steps:** - Please let me know if this issue is still relevant to the latest version of better-auth by commenting here. - If I don’t hear back within 7 days, I will automatically close this issue. Thanks for your understanding and contribution!
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 documentation stale
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#2461
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?