github-starred/better-auth
2
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/better-auth/better-auth.git synced 2026-05-24 16:11:53 -05:00
Code Issues 2.5k Packages Projects Releases 112 Wiki Activity

[GH-ISSUE #4498] Support Multiple Google Client IDs for Cross-Platform Token Verification #27282

New Issue
Open
opened 2026-04-17 18:12:55 -05:00 by GiteaMirror · 24 comments
GiteaMirror commented 2026-04-17 18:12:55 -05:00
Owner
Copy Link

Originally created by @Nishchit14 on GitHub (Sep 7, 2025).
Original GitHub issue: https://github.com/better-auth/better-auth/issues/4498

Originally assigned to: @gustavovalverde on GitHub.

Currently, betterAuth does not support verifying Google tokens from multiple client IDs within a single configuration. This limitation creates issues when building cross-platform applications where each platform (iOS, Android, Web) has its own Google OAuth client ID, but all need to authenticate with the same backend API.

Use Case:

  • iOS app uses Google Client ID: 123-ios.googleusercontent.com
  • Android app uses Google Client ID: 456-android.googleusercontent.com
  • Both apps call the same better-auth API endpoint.

At present, only one client ID can be configured, which causes token verification to fail for other platform client ids.

Expected Behavior:
better-auth should allow configuring an array of Google client IDs and verify tokens against any of the configured client IDs or allow to use dynamic client id option at verification time.

This would enable seamless cross-platform authentication while maintaining security and consistency across apps.

Originally created by @Nishchit14 on GitHub (Sep 7, 2025). Original GitHub issue: https://github.com/better-auth/better-auth/issues/4498 Originally assigned to: @gustavovalverde on GitHub. Currently, `betterAuth` does not support verifying Google tokens from multiple client IDs within a single configuration. This limitation creates issues when building cross-platform applications where each platform (iOS, Android, Web) has its own Google OAuth client ID, but all need to authenticate with the same backend API. **Use Case:** * iOS app uses Google Client ID: `123-ios.googleusercontent.com` * Android app uses Google Client ID: `456-android.googleusercontent.com` * Both apps call the same `better-auth` API endpoint. At present, only one client ID can be configured, which causes token verification to fail for other platform client ids. **Expected Behavior:** `better-auth` should allow configuring an **array of Google client IDs** and verify tokens against any of the configured client IDs or allow to use dynamic client id option at verification time. This would enable seamless cross-platform authentication while maintaining security and consistency across apps.
GiteaMirror added the platformoauth labels 2026-04-17 18:12:56 -05:00
GiteaMirror commented 2026-04-17 18:12:58 -05:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@RikhiSingh commented on GitHub (Sep 11, 2025):

Hi @Nishchit14 , Solved in #4583

<!-- gh-comment-id:3280345266 --> @RikhiSingh commented on GitHub (Sep 11, 2025): Hi @Nishchit14 , Solved in #4583
GiteaMirror commented 2026-04-17 18:12:59 -05:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@Nishchit14 commented on GitHub (Sep 11, 2025):

That's awesome @RikhiSingh , Thank you very much. I am now waiting to get this PR merged.

<!-- gh-comment-id:3280517839 --> @Nishchit14 commented on GitHub (Sep 11, 2025): That's awesome @RikhiSingh , Thank you very much. I am now waiting to get this PR merged.
GiteaMirror commented 2026-04-17 18:13:00 -05:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@amrmelsayed commented on GitHub (Oct 15, 2025):

@RikhiSingh @himself65 I noticed that this PR (support for Multiple Google Client IDs) was closed without merging, are there still plans to add this feature? It's a bit of show stopper for mobile development as we can only attach a single Google client at the moment.

<!-- gh-comment-id:3408623014 --> @amrmelsayed commented on GitHub (Oct 15, 2025): @RikhiSingh @himself65 I noticed that this PR (support for Multiple Google Client IDs) was closed without merging, are there still plans to add this feature? It's a bit of show stopper for mobile development as we can only attach a single Google client at the moment.
GiteaMirror commented 2026-04-17 18:13:00 -05:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@RikhiSingh commented on GitHub (Oct 15, 2025):

@amrmelsayed It was solved in #4583 and later merged through different PR I believe

<!-- gh-comment-id:3408634338 --> @RikhiSingh commented on GitHub (Oct 15, 2025): @amrmelsayed It was solved in #4583 and later merged through different PR I believe
GiteaMirror commented 2026-04-17 18:13:01 -05:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@amrmelsayed commented on GitHub (Oct 16, 2025):

Thanks @RikhiSingh would you know how to configure better-auth with multiple client IDs or can you point me to any code samples? The official documentation still assumes a single google clientId / clientSecret per app https://www.better-auth.com/docs/authentication/google.

<!-- gh-comment-id:3408986026 --> @amrmelsayed commented on GitHub (Oct 16, 2025): Thanks @RikhiSingh would you know how to configure better-auth with multiple client IDs or can you point me to any code samples? The official documentation still assumes a single google clientId / clientSecret per app https://www.better-auth.com/docs/authentication/google.
GiteaMirror commented 2026-04-17 18:13:01 -05:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@RikhiSingh commented on GitHub (Oct 17, 2025):

@amrmelsayed

export const auth = betterAuth({
  socialProviders: {
    google: {
      clientId: [
        "123-ios.googleusercontent.com",
        "456-android.googleusercontent.com", 
        "789-web.googleusercontent.com"
      ],
      clientSecret: "your-client-secret",
    },
  },
});
<!-- gh-comment-id:3415502102 --> @RikhiSingh commented on GitHub (Oct 17, 2025): @amrmelsayed ```typescript export const auth = betterAuth({ socialProviders: { google: { clientId: [ "123-ios.googleusercontent.com", "456-android.googleusercontent.com", "789-web.googleusercontent.com" ], clientSecret: "your-client-secret", }, }, }); ```
GiteaMirror commented 2026-04-17 18:13:02 -05:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@WilliamDrmrd commented on GitHub (Oct 28, 2025):

Hi @amrmelsayed did you make this work ?

<!-- gh-comment-id:3458119929 --> @WilliamDrmrd commented on GitHub (Oct 28, 2025): Hi @amrmelsayed did you make this work ?
GiteaMirror commented 2026-04-17 18:13:02 -05:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@Vashishta-Mithra-Reddy commented on GitHub (Nov 2, 2025):

Stuck for the past 3 days trying to find a workaround, What is the current status of this I am still not able to use an array of client id's

<!-- gh-comment-id:3477982279 --> @Vashishta-Mithra-Reddy commented on GitHub (Nov 2, 2025): Stuck for the past 3 days trying to find a workaround, What is the current status of this I am still not able to use an array of client id's
GiteaMirror commented 2026-04-17 18:13:02 -05:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@better-auth-agent[bot] commented on GitHub (Nov 2, 2025):

The latest update now supports multiple Google client IDs. You should be able to configure your Google provider with an array of client IDs instead of a single string. This means if your iOS app uses "123-ios.googleusercontent.com" and your Android app uses "456-android.googleusercontent.com," both tokens will be accepted during verification.

Next steps:
• Ensure you upgrade to the latest version of betterAuth where multiple client ID support has been merged.
• Update your configuration so that the Google provider’s clientId is defined as an array (or, if using the dynamic client ID option, pass it in the sign-in request).
• Verify that your tokens’ aud values match one of the IDs in your configured array.

If you’re still experiencing issues after updating, double-check that the provider configuration is correctly applied and consider reaching out with reproduction details. This enhancement was designed to enable seamless cross-platform sign-in without breaking existing setups [1], [2].

Diagram • Discord • GitHub

Diagram Join Star

<!-- gh-comment-id:3477982383 --> @better-auth-agent[bot] commented on GitHub (Nov 2, 2025): The latest update now supports multiple Google client IDs. You should be able to configure your Google provider with an array of client IDs instead of a single string. This means if your iOS app uses "123-ios.googleusercontent.com" and your Android app uses "456-android.googleusercontent.com," both tokens will be accepted during verification. Next steps: • Ensure you upgrade to the latest version of betterAuth where multiple client ID support has been merged. • Update your configuration so that the Google provider’s clientId is defined as an array (or, if using the dynamic client ID option, pass it in the sign-in request). • Verify that your tokens’ aud values match one of the IDs in your configured array. If you’re still experiencing issues after updating, double-check that the provider configuration is correctly applied and consider reaching out with reproduction details. This enhancement was designed to enable seamless cross-platform sign-in without breaking existing setups [[1]](https://github.com/better-auth/better-auth/issues/4498), [[2]](https://github.com/better-auth/better-auth/pull/4583). <!-- 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 2026-04-17 18:13:03 -05:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@Vashishta-Mithra-Reddy commented on GitHub (Nov 2, 2025):

I updated to the latest version but I still see this error Type 'string[]' is not assignable to type 'string'.ts(2322)
(property) GoogleOptions.clientId: string
The client ID of your application.

This is usually a string but can be any type depending on the provider. and it is still a string here right? interface GoogleOptions extends ProviderOptions {

clientId: string;

Am I doing something wrong?

<!-- gh-comment-id:3478165796 --> @Vashishta-Mithra-Reddy commented on GitHub (Nov 2, 2025): I updated to the latest version but I still see this error Type 'string[]' is not assignable to type 'string'.ts(2322) (property) GoogleOptions.clientId: string The client ID of your application. This is usually a string but can be any type depending on the provider. and it is still a string here right? interface GoogleOptions extends ProviderOptions<GoogleProfile> { clientId: string; Am I doing something wrong?
GiteaMirror commented 2026-04-17 18:13:03 -05:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@better-auth-agent[bot] commented on GitHub (Nov 2, 2025):

It sounds like your runtime has been updated to support multiple client IDs, but your TypeScript types still expect a string. Make sure you’re using the latest version of both the runtime and its type definitions. In recent updates the Google provider was changed so that the configuration accepts an array of strings for the clientId, but if your project’s TypeScript types haven’t updated you may see that error [1].

Next steps:

  1. Verify that your package.json is pointing to the latest version of better-auth, and that no older type definitions are lingering (try deleting your node_modules and reinstalling).
  2. Check if there’s an updated declaration file (*.d.ts) for the Google provider. Sometimes the runtime update isn’t immediately reflected in the exported types, so you may need to override the type locally or use a type assertion (e.g., cast your clientId as string | string[]).
  3. If the error persists, consult the release notes or documentation for any migration steps regarding TypeScript users, as there may be a new configuration property or a different option name (for example, some updates also allow a dynamic or separate property for an array of client IDs) [2].

These steps should help match the runtime behavior with your type expectations and resolve the error.

Diagram • Discord • GitHub

Diagram Join Star

<!-- gh-comment-id:3478165962 --> @better-auth-agent[bot] commented on GitHub (Nov 2, 2025): It sounds like your runtime has been updated to support multiple client IDs, but your TypeScript types still expect a string. Make sure you’re using the latest version of both the runtime and its type definitions. In recent updates the Google provider was changed so that the configuration accepts an array of strings for the clientId, but if your project’s TypeScript types haven’t updated you may see that error [[1]](https://github.com/better-auth/better-auth/issues/4498). Next steps: 1. Verify that your package.json is pointing to the latest version of better-auth, and that no older type definitions are lingering (try deleting your node_modules and reinstalling). 2. Check if there’s an updated declaration file (*.d.ts) for the Google provider. Sometimes the runtime update isn’t immediately reflected in the exported types, so you may need to override the type locally or use a type assertion (e.g., cast your clientId as string | string[]). 3. If the error persists, consult the release notes or documentation for any migration steps regarding TypeScript users, as there may be a new configuration property or a different option name (for example, some updates also allow a dynamic or separate property for an array of client IDs) [[2]](https://github.com/better-auth/better-auth/pull/4583). These steps should help match the runtime behavior with your type expectations and resolve the error. <!-- 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 2026-04-17 18:13:04 -05:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@MemerGamer commented on GitHub (Nov 6, 2025):

This is still not working, tried casting the array to fix the issue temporarily but that did not work. It would be nice to have some solution for this, even if its a bit hacky

@amrmelsayed

export const auth = betterAuth({
socialProviders: {
google: {
clientId: [
"123-ios.googleusercontent.com",
"456-android.googleusercontent.com",
"789-web.googleusercontent.com"
],
clientSecret: "your-client-secret",
},
},
});

<!-- gh-comment-id:3495972312 --> @MemerGamer commented on GitHub (Nov 6, 2025): This is still not working, tried casting the array to fix the issue temporarily but that did not work. It would be nice to have some solution for this, even if its a bit hacky > [@amrmelsayed](https://github.com/amrmelsayed) > > export const auth = betterAuth({ > socialProviders: { > google: { > clientId: [ > "123-ios.googleusercontent.com", > "456-android.googleusercontent.com", > "789-web.googleusercontent.com" > ], > clientSecret: "your-client-secret", > }, > }, > });
GiteaMirror commented 2026-04-17 18:13:04 -05:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@MemerGamer commented on GitHub (Nov 6, 2025):

Hi @Nishchit14 , Solved in #4583

This in fact was not solved the PR is closed NOT merged

<!-- gh-comment-id:3496021425 --> @MemerGamer commented on GitHub (Nov 6, 2025): > Hi [@Nishchit14](https://github.com/Nishchit14) , Solved in [#4583](https://github.com/better-auth/better-auth/pull/4583) This in fact was not solved the PR is closed NOT merged
GiteaMirror commented 2026-04-17 18:13:04 -05:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@Sriketk commented on GitHub (Dec 10, 2025):

Is there an update regarding this? client id still only takes a string, not an array?

<!-- gh-comment-id:3635011240 --> @Sriketk commented on GitHub (Dec 10, 2025): Is there an update regarding this? client id still only takes a string, not an array?
GiteaMirror commented 2026-04-17 18:13:05 -05:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@KingDoxik commented on GitHub (Dec 15, 2025):

This is a real blocker for mobile apps. Is there any workaround?

<!-- gh-comment-id:3656210373 --> @KingDoxik commented on GitHub (Dec 15, 2025): This is a real blocker for mobile apps. Is there any workaround?
GiteaMirror commented 2026-04-17 18:13:05 -05:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@Sriketk commented on GitHub (Dec 15, 2025):

This is a real blocker for mobile apps. Is there any workaround?

Yup. Someone from the better auth team helped me out. https://discord.com/channels/1288403910284935179/1448130769674567820.

Its in this thread.

<!-- gh-comment-id:3656339763 --> @Sriketk commented on GitHub (Dec 15, 2025): > This is a real blocker for mobile apps. Is there any workaround? Yup. Someone from the better auth team helped me out. https://discord.com/channels/1288403910284935179/1448130769674567820. Its in this thread.
GiteaMirror commented 2026-04-17 18:13:06 -05:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@Nishchit14 commented on GitHub (Dec 16, 2025):

This is a real blocker for mobile apps. Is there any workaround?

Yup. Someone from the better auth team helped me out. https://discord.com/channels/1288403910284935179/1448130769674567820.

Its in this thread.

For quick read

import { betterAuth } from "better-auth";
import { createAuthMiddleware } from "better-auth/api";
import { google } from "better-auth/social-providers";

export const auth = betterAuth({
  socialProviders: {
    google: {
      clientId: process.env.GOOGLE_CLIENT_ID!,
      clientSecret: process.env.GOOGLE_CLIENT_SECRET!,
      disableImplicitSignUp: true,
    },
  },
  hooks: {
    before: createAuthMiddleware(async (ctx) => {
      ctx.context.socialProviders = [
        ...ctx.context.socialProviders,
        {
          ...google({
            clientId: process.env.GOOGLE_IOS_CLIENT_ID!,
            clientSecret: process.env.GOOGLE_IOS_CLIENT_SECRET!,
            disableImplicitSignUp: true, // This does NOT work and will NOT toggle disableImplicitSignUp setting
          }),
          id: "google_ios",
        },
        {
          ...google({
            clientId: process.env.GOOGLE_ANDROID_CLIENT_ID!,
            clientSecret: process.env.GOOGLE_ANDROID_CLIENT_SECRET!,
          }),
          id: "google_android",
          disableImplicitSignUp: true, // This does work and will toggle disableImplicitSignUp setting
        },
      ];
    }),
  },
});
<!-- gh-comment-id:3659493448 --> @Nishchit14 commented on GitHub (Dec 16, 2025): > > This is a real blocker for mobile apps. Is there any workaround? > > Yup. Someone from the better auth team helped me out. https://discord.com/channels/1288403910284935179/1448130769674567820. > > Its in this thread. For quick read ```ts import { betterAuth } from "better-auth"; import { createAuthMiddleware } from "better-auth/api"; import { google } from "better-auth/social-providers"; export const auth = betterAuth({ socialProviders: { google: { clientId: process.env.GOOGLE_CLIENT_ID!, clientSecret: process.env.GOOGLE_CLIENT_SECRET!, disableImplicitSignUp: true, }, }, hooks: { before: createAuthMiddleware(async (ctx) => { ctx.context.socialProviders = [ ...ctx.context.socialProviders, { ...google({ clientId: process.env.GOOGLE_IOS_CLIENT_ID!, clientSecret: process.env.GOOGLE_IOS_CLIENT_SECRET!, disableImplicitSignUp: true, // This does NOT work and will NOT toggle disableImplicitSignUp setting }), id: "google_ios", }, { ...google({ clientId: process.env.GOOGLE_ANDROID_CLIENT_ID!, clientSecret: process.env.GOOGLE_ANDROID_CLIENT_SECRET!, }), id: "google_android", disableImplicitSignUp: true, // This does work and will toggle disableImplicitSignUp setting }, ]; }), }, }); ```
GiteaMirror commented 2026-04-17 18:13:06 -05:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@Sriketk commented on GitHub (Dec 16, 2025):

additional context for those that want to implement this. you have to use the native google sdk in your mobile app first to connect to google. Upon successful sign in, the api will return a access token and an id token. Then either using better auths open api endpoints or using your custom endpoint(to use the better auth sdk), you pass those tokens over.

This is an example of your custom endpoint.

const result = await auth.api.signInSocial({
      body: {
        provider: "google_ios",
        idToken: {
          token: idToken,
          accessToken: accessToken,
        },
      },
      headers: req.headers,
    });

This is an example of using the openapi endpoint in swift

guard let url = URL(string: "https://www.try-cobalt.com/api/auth/sign-in/social")
            else { throw MobileAuthError.authenticationFailed("Invalid API URL") }

            let requestBody = GoogleAuthPayload(
                provider: "google_ios",
                idToken: GoogleIDToken(
                    token: idToken,
                    accessToken: accessToken
                )
            )

If you get a 200, you are successfully authenticated, and you can very easily and securely call any your business logic apis.

Also make sure your provider aligns with id in the auth.ts file.

<!-- gh-comment-id:3661441657 --> @Sriketk commented on GitHub (Dec 16, 2025): additional context for those that want to implement this. you have to use the native google sdk in your mobile app first to connect to google. Upon successful sign in, the api will return a access token and an id token. Then either using better auths open api endpoints or using your custom endpoint(to use the better auth sdk), you pass those tokens over. This is an example of your custom endpoint. ```js const result = await auth.api.signInSocial({ body: { provider: "google_ios", idToken: { token: idToken, accessToken: accessToken, }, }, headers: req.headers, }); ``` This is an example of using the openapi endpoint in swift ```swift guard let url = URL(string: "https://www.try-cobalt.com/api/auth/sign-in/social") else { throw MobileAuthError.authenticationFailed("Invalid API URL") } let requestBody = GoogleAuthPayload( provider: "google_ios", idToken: GoogleIDToken( token: idToken, accessToken: accessToken ) ) ``` If you get a 200, you are successfully authenticated, and you can very easily and securely call any your business logic apis. Also make sure your provider aligns with id in the auth.ts file.
GiteaMirror commented 2026-04-17 18:13:06 -05:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@krishna-404 commented on GitHub (Mar 15, 2026):

Need a way to handle mobile login with missing-origins and csrf-disable.

Have used a work-around for now but auth is one place where you dont want to hack things :|

<!-- gh-comment-id:4062097530 --> @krishna-404 commented on GitHub (Mar 15, 2026): Need a way to handle mobile login with missing-origins and csrf-disable. Have used a work-around for now but auth is one place where you dont want to hack things :|
GiteaMirror commented 2026-04-17 18:13:07 -05:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@nalin-handa commented on GitHub (Mar 23, 2026):

Is this issue fixed?

<!-- gh-comment-id:4110053264 --> @nalin-handa commented on GitHub (Mar 23, 2026): Is this issue fixed?
GiteaMirror commented 2026-04-17 18:13:08 -05:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@lxup commented on GitHub (Apr 17, 2026):

This is honestly a big blocker for using better-auth in any real mobile + web setup.

Multiple Google client IDs is mandatory for iOS / Android / Web, and right now there’s no clean way to do it.

What I don’t get is: several PRs tried to implement this, but none got merged.

So what’s actually blocking this? Is it a design issue, security concern, or something else?

<!-- gh-comment-id:4266354349 --> @lxup commented on GitHub (Apr 17, 2026): This is honestly a big blocker for using better-auth in any real mobile + web setup. Multiple Google client IDs is mandatory for iOS / Android / Web, and right now there’s no clean way to do it. What I don’t get is: several PRs tried to implement this, but none got merged. So what’s actually blocking this? Is it a design issue, security concern, or something else?
GiteaMirror commented 2026-04-17 18:13:08 -05:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@RikhiSingh commented on GitHub (Apr 17, 2026):

I do not know what the team is upto. I created a PR couple months ago, i.e., 11 Sep 2025, they merge it, revereted it and someone forked my branch created PR the team closed it, and copied my code from my branch into their own branch, created a PR, its sitting there, unmerged.

So 3 PRs, got nowhere no updates, I stopped using better-auth. I thought I will use this FOSS, if I run into any issues community will help or I myself can create a PR, fought with this kinda situations for over 6-7 months but then there are multiple "better" alternatives out there. So I ditched it.

<!-- gh-comment-id:4267545870 --> @RikhiSingh commented on GitHub (Apr 17, 2026): I do not know what the team is upto. I created a PR couple months ago, i.e., 11 Sep 2025, they merge it, revereted it and someone forked my branch created PR the team closed it, and copied my code from my branch into their own branch, created a PR, its sitting there, unmerged. So 3 PRs, got nowhere no updates, I stopped using better-auth. I thought I will use this FOSS, if I run into any issues community will help or I myself can create a PR, fought with this kinda situations for over 6-7 months but then there are multiple "better" alternatives out there. So I ditched it.
GiteaMirror commented 2026-04-17 18:13:08 -05:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@gustavovalverde commented on GitHub (Apr 17, 2026):

I'll be having a look at this one, including existing or previous PRs

<!-- gh-comment-id:4269752353 --> @gustavovalverde commented on GitHub (Apr 17, 2026): I'll be having a look at this one, including existing or previous PRs
GiteaMirror commented 2026-04-17 18:13:09 -05:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@Sriketk commented on GitHub (Apr 17, 2026):

can you take a look at the solution / workaround I outlined above. is it secure?

<!-- gh-comment-id:4271298137 --> @Sriketk commented on GitHub (Apr 17, 2026): can you take a look at the solution / workaround I outlined above. is it secure?
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 oauth platform
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#27282
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?