Emulator Idempotency: Auth #8750
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
🦋 Changeset detectedLatest commit: c829d99 The changes in this PR will be included in the next version bump. This PR includes changesets to release 3 packages
Not sure what this means? Click here to learn what changesets are. Click here if you're a maintainer who wants to add another changeset to this PR |
Vertex AI Mock Responses Check
|
Size Report 1Affected Products
Test Logs |
Size Analysis Report 1This report is too large (639,879 characters) to be displayed here in a GitHub comment. Please use the below link to see the full report on Google Cloud Storage.Test Logs |
DellaBitta
requested review from
a team,
lisajian,
Xiaoshouzi-gh,
sam-gc,
pashanka,
mansisampat and
NhienLam
as code owners
dlarocque
approved these changes
Feb 4, 2025
NhienLam
approved these changes
Feb 4, 2025
hsubox76
reviewed
Feb 5, 2025
| host, | ||
| port, | ||
| protocol: protocol.replace(':', ''), | ||
| options: Object.freeze({ disableWarnings }) | ||
| }); | ||
|
|
||
| if (!authInternal._canInitEmulator) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think this technically works but it doesn't make the logic clear. There's two reasons to throw here, one is if they're calling this for the first time too late (after a network call has been made, that's the purpose of authInternal._canInitEmulator), and the second reason is if they're calling it for a second time with different args. This makes it look like we're only targeting the second case. It will actually work on the first case, of course, because the local vars emulator and emulatorConfig will have some properties, and won't match {}, but I guess the fact it's nested inside a deepEqual doesn't make it clear that's a case we're trying to block on.
I know it's more verbose, but instead of the || {} maybe a separate _assert before this one that just tests for the existence of authInternal.config.emulator and authInternal.emulatorConfig would make it clearer that we're covering 2 different cases?
hsubox76
approved these changes
Feb 5, 2025
Fixed typo in `multiple`
Merged
Sign up for free
to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Discussion
Update the
connectAuthEmulatorfunction to support its invocation more than once. If the Auth instance is already in use, andconnectAuthEmulatoris invoked with the same configuration, then the invocation will now succeed instead of assert.This unlocks support for web frameworks which may render the page numerous times with the same instances of auth. Before this PR customers needed to add extra code to guard against calling
connectAuthEmulatorin their SSR logic. Now we do that guarding logic on their behalf which should simplify our customer's apps.Fixes #6824.
Testing
CI, new tests added to
packages/auth/src/core/auth/emulator.test.ts.API Changes
N/A