github-starred/better-auth
2
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/better-auth/better-auth.git synced 2026-05-22 14:21:55 -05:00
Code Issues 2.5k Packages Projects Releases 112 Wiki Activity

[GH-ISSUE #3353] Error with getJwtToken on newSession: TypeError: Cannot read properties of null (reading 'user') #9577

New Issue
Closed
opened 2026-04-13 05:06:19 -05:00 by GiteaMirror · 4 comments
GiteaMirror commented 2026-04-13 05:06:19 -05:00
Owner
Copy Link

Originally created by @izakfilmalter on GitHub (Jul 12, 2025).
Original GitHub issue: https://github.com/better-auth/better-auth/issues/3353

I copied the setup @Bekacru did and ran into the same issue: https://github.com/rocicorp/ztunes/pull/9#issuecomment-3026768995

Code:

after: createAuthMiddleware(async ctx => {
  if (ctx.path.indexOf('/callback/') !== -1) {
    const headers = must(ctx.context.responseHeaders);
    const session = ctx.context.newSession;
    const token =
      ctx.context.responseHeaders?.get('set-auth-jwt') ||
      (await getJwtToken(ctx));

    if (session && token) {
      setCookies(headers, {
        userid: session.user.id,
        email: session.user.email,
        jwt: token,
      });
    }
    return;
  }

  if (ctx.path.indexOf('/sign-out') !== -1) {
    const headers = must(ctx.context.responseHeaders);
    setCookies(headers, {
      userid: '',
      email: '',
      jwt: '',
    });
    return;
  }
})

Error:

TypeError: Cannot read properties of null (reading 'user')
    at getJwtToken (file:///Users/izakfilmalter/Projects/FaithBase/openfaith/node_modules/better-auth/dist/plugins/jwt/index.mjs:108:70)
    at async onSome (/Users/izakfilmalter/Projects/FaithBase/openfaith/packages/auth/auth.ts:143:68)
    at async eval (/Users/izakfilmalter/Projects/FaithBase/openfaith/packages/auth/auth.ts:132:7)

Source:
3fed4c0f70/packages/better-auth/src/plugins/jwt/index.ts (L179)

This issue comes from not having session but having newSession. I have done the following to work around the issue for now:

    const session = ctx.context.newSession;
    ctx.context.session = session // Force the newSession as the session so that `getJwtToken` doesn't error.
    const token =
      ctx.context.responseHeaders?.get('set-auth-jwt') ||
      (await getJwtToken(ctx));
Originally created by @izakfilmalter on GitHub (Jul 12, 2025). Original GitHub issue: https://github.com/better-auth/better-auth/issues/3353 I copied the setup @Bekacru did and ran into the same issue: https://github.com/rocicorp/ztunes/pull/9#issuecomment-3026768995 Code: ```ts after: createAuthMiddleware(async ctx => { if (ctx.path.indexOf('/callback/') !== -1) { const headers = must(ctx.context.responseHeaders); const session = ctx.context.newSession; const token = ctx.context.responseHeaders?.get('set-auth-jwt') || (await getJwtToken(ctx)); if (session && token) { setCookies(headers, { userid: session.user.id, email: session.user.email, jwt: token, }); } return; } if (ctx.path.indexOf('/sign-out') !== -1) { const headers = must(ctx.context.responseHeaders); setCookies(headers, { userid: '', email: '', jwt: '', }); return; } }) ``` Error: ``` TypeError: Cannot read properties of null (reading 'user') at getJwtToken (file:///Users/izakfilmalter/Projects/FaithBase/openfaith/node_modules/better-auth/dist/plugins/jwt/index.mjs:108:70) at async onSome (/Users/izakfilmalter/Projects/FaithBase/openfaith/packages/auth/auth.ts:143:68) at async eval (/Users/izakfilmalter/Projects/FaithBase/openfaith/packages/auth/auth.ts:132:7) ``` Source: https://github.com/better-auth/better-auth/blob/3fed4c0f70202bfadda0a0619016a721dacd7312/packages/better-auth/src/plugins/jwt/index.ts#L179 This issue comes from not having `session` but having `newSession`. I have done the following to work around the issue for now: ```ts const session = ctx.context.newSession; ctx.context.session = session // Force the newSession as the session so that `getJwtToken` doesn't error. const token = ctx.context.responseHeaders?.get('set-auth-jwt') || (await getJwtToken(ctx)); ```
GiteaMirror added the lockedbug labels 2026-04-13 05:06:20 -05:00
GiteaMirror commented 2026-04-13 05:06:22 -05:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@dosubot[bot] commented on GitHub (Jul 12, 2025):

Hi @izakfilmalter! I'm Dosu and I’m helping the better-auth team.

The error happens because getJwtToken only looks for ctx.context.session and doesn't check ctx.context.newSession, so if session is null you'll get a TypeError when it tries to access session.user. Your workaround—assigning newSession to session before calling getJwtToken—is necessary in this flow and matches what the code expects. There isn't a more idiomatic or built-in way to handle this in better-auth right now; the framework expects session to be set when generating a JWT, and doesn't automatically bridge newSession to session for you. This pattern is safe as long as you're sure newSession is valid at that point in the flow, but it's an edge case that could use better documentation or a framework update to make it less error-prone see source.

To reply, just mention @dosu.

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

<!-- gh-comment-id:3065430647 --> @dosubot[bot] commented on GitHub (Jul 12, 2025): <!-- Greeting --> Hi @izakfilmalter! I'm [Dosu](https://go.dosu.dev/dosubot) and I’m helping the better-auth team. <!-- Answer --> The error happens because getJwtToken only looks for ctx.context.session and doesn't check ctx.context.newSession, so if session is null you'll get a TypeError when it tries to access session.user. Your workaround—assigning newSession to session before calling getJwtToken—is necessary in this flow and matches what the code expects. There isn't a more idiomatic or built-in way to handle this in better-auth right now; the framework expects session to be set when generating a JWT, and doesn't automatically bridge newSession to session for you. This pattern is safe as long as you're sure newSession is valid at that point in the flow, but it's an edge case that could use better documentation or a framework update to make it less error-prone [see source](https://github.com/better-auth/better-auth/blob/de20ad60aa7df50d147d8e94f61ee99cb49709a2/packages/better-auth/src/plugins/jwt/index.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/057d56e7-f367-4350-ad5c-634475aacd94?feedback_type=great_response) | [Irrelevant](https://app.dosu.dev/response-feedback/057d56e7-f367-4350-ad5c-634475aacd94?feedback_type=irrelevant_answer) | [Incorrect](https://app.dosu.dev/response-feedback/057d56e7-f367-4350-ad5c-634475aacd94?feedback_type=incorrect_sources) | [Verbose](https://app.dosu.dev/response-feedback/057d56e7-f367-4350-ad5c-634475aacd94?feedback_type=too_verbose) | [Hallucination](https://app.dosu.dev/response-feedback/057d56e7-f367-4350-ad5c-634475aacd94?feedback_type=hallucination) | [Report 🐛](https://app.dosu.dev/response-feedback/057d56e7-f367-4350-ad5c-634475aacd94?feedback_type=bug_report) | [Other](https://app.dosu.dev/response-feedback/057d56e7-f367-4350-ad5c-634475aacd94?feedback_type=other)</sup>&nbsp;&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/3353)
GiteaMirror commented 2026-04-13 05:06:23 -05:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@NicoToff commented on GitHub (Jul 15, 2025):

Hey @izakfilmalter
That should fix the logic behind the issue, but the typing looks wrong with all these ! assertions. "Bang" or as assertions lead to brittle code, because you're telling the TS compiler you know better.

In this case, a guard clause ensuring that a session is present will allow to catch problems early and ensure a session is passed to the functions that need one.

<!-- gh-comment-id:3072005683 --> @NicoToff commented on GitHub (Jul 15, 2025): Hey @izakfilmalter That should fix the logic behind the issue, but the typing looks wrong with all these `!` assertions. "Bang" or `as` assertions lead to brittle code, because you're telling the TS compiler you know better. In this case, a guard clause ensuring that a session is present will allow to catch problems early and ensure a session is passed to the functions that need one.
GiteaMirror commented 2026-04-13 05:06:24 -05:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@frectonz commented on GitHub (Sep 8, 2025):

@izakfilmalter Are you still facing this problem? Can you also describe what the problem you are trying to solve is, i think i might be missing some context around the problem. It will also be very helpful if you could set up a minimal reproduction of the issue.

<!-- gh-comment-id:3267046231 --> @frectonz commented on GitHub (Sep 8, 2025): @izakfilmalter Are you still facing this problem? Can you also describe what the problem you are trying to solve is, i think i might be missing some context around the problem. It will also be very helpful if you could set up a minimal reproduction of the issue.
GiteaMirror commented 2026-04-13 05:06:25 -05:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@dosubot[bot] commented on GitHub (Dec 8, 2025):

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

Issue Summary:

  • You reported a TypeError when calling getJwtToken because ctx.context.session is null while ctx.context.newSession exists.
  • The current workaround is to assign newSession to session before calling getJwtToken, which I consider safe.
  • The issue highlights a need for better documentation or framework support for this edge case.
  • Maintainer NicoToff suggested adding a guard clause to ensure session presence for more robust TypeScript handling.
  • Another maintainer requested more context or a minimal reproduction to better understand the problem.

Next Steps:

  • Please let me know if this issue is still relevant with 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!

<!-- gh-comment-id:3627771689 --> @dosubot[bot] commented on GitHub (Dec 8, 2025): Hi, @izakfilmalter. 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 reported a TypeError when calling `getJwtToken` because `ctx.context.session` is null while `ctx.context.newSession` exists. - The current workaround is to assign `newSession` to `session` before calling `getJwtToken`, which I consider safe. - The issue highlights a need for better documentation or framework support for this edge case. - Maintainer NicoToff suggested adding a guard clause to ensure `session` presence for more robust TypeScript handling. - Another maintainer requested more context or a minimal reproduction to better understand the problem. **Next Steps:** - Please let me know if this issue is still relevant with 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 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#9577
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?