feat(clerk-js): Handle new session `pending` status as authenticated state#5136

nikosdouvlis · 2025-02-18T09:42:52Z

The isSignedIn property makes sense to me!
In the PR description, you mention that:
Clerk.user shouldn't be used to determine if the user has fully authenticated or not
But the logic in the Client resource tells me that isSignedIn is going to be true if the current session is active or pending, meaning that currently, isSignedIn cannot be used to check if the user is fully authenticated or not.
Is this intentional? If yes, could you please provide an example where Clerk.isSignedIn !== !!Clerk.user?

meaning that currently, isSignedIn cannot be used to check if the user is fully authenticated or not.
The user has fully authenticated even with a pending status. Still, they have pending tasks to complete, eg: After sign-in, complete all factors but FAPI returns a pending session for tasks such as having to select an org.
Is this intentional? If yes, could you please provide an example where Clerk.isSignedIn !== !!Clerk.user
Currently, they are the same. This PR treats pending exactly like active to maintain current functionality and to incrementally add protections for it since the feature is gated on FAPI and toggled via Dashboard.
That property was added to avoid relying only on the user object, or Clerk.activeSessions.length > 0 for our internal "signed-in" state checks.
Once we introduce tasks (#5170) -> I'd add another property that specifically checks if the user has a session that resolved all pending tasks, something like:
// Would resolve to `false` for session.status === 'pending' // Would resolve to `true` for session.status === 'active'if(Clerk.hasValidSession){clerk.mountUserButton(userbuttonDiv)}else{clerk.mountSignIn(signInDiv)}
As a syntax sugar so that developers don't have to manually check for the session statuses on custom flows as well.

I actually acknowledged that I misplaced "Clerk.user shouldn't be used to determine if the user has fully authenticated or not" statement and updated the changeset here
isSignedIn doesn't necessarily replace Clerk.user, but it does act like a syntax sugar to deprecate any manual references to Clerk.client.activeSessions.length > 0, !!Clerk.user or !!Clerk.session

nikosdouvlis · 2025-02-18T09:42:52Z

The isSignedIn property makes sense to me!
In the PR description, you mention that:
Clerk.user shouldn't be used to determine if the user has fully authenticated or not
But the logic in the Client resource tells me that isSignedIn is going to be true if the current session is active or pending, meaning that currently, isSignedIn cannot be used to check if the user is fully authenticated or not.
Is this intentional? If yes, could you please provide an example where Clerk.isSignedIn !== !!Clerk.user?

meaning that currently, isSignedIn cannot be used to check if the user is fully authenticated or not.
The user has fully authenticated even with a pending status. Still, they have pending tasks to complete, eg: After sign-in, complete all factors but FAPI returns a pending session for tasks such as having to select an org.
Is this intentional? If yes, could you please provide an example where Clerk.isSignedIn !== !!Clerk.user
Currently, they are the same. This PR treats pending exactly like active to maintain current functionality and to incrementally add protections for it since the feature is gated on FAPI and toggled via Dashboard.
That property was added to avoid relying only on the user object, or Clerk.activeSessions.length > 0 for our internal "signed-in" state checks.
Once we introduce tasks (#5170) -> I'd add another property that specifically checks if the user has a session that resolved all pending tasks, something like:
// Would resolve to `false` for session.status === 'pending' // Would resolve to `true` for session.status === 'active'if(Clerk.hasValidSession){clerk.mountUserButton(userbuttonDiv)}else{clerk.mountSignIn(signInDiv)}
As a syntax sugar so that developers don't have to manually check for the session statuses on custom flows as well.

I actually acknowledged that I misplaced "Clerk.user shouldn't be used to determine if the user has fully authenticated or not" statement and updated the changeset here
isSignedIn doesn't necessarily replace Clerk.user, but it does act like a syntax sugar to deprecate any manual references to Clerk.client.activeSessions.length > 0, !!Clerk.user or !!Clerk.session

nikosdouvlis · 2025-02-18T09:42:52Z

The isSignedIn property makes sense to me!
In the PR description, you mention that:
Clerk.user shouldn't be used to determine if the user has fully authenticated or not
But the logic in the Client resource tells me that isSignedIn is going to be true if the current session is active or pending, meaning that currently, isSignedIn cannot be used to check if the user is fully authenticated or not.
Is this intentional? If yes, could you please provide an example where Clerk.isSignedIn !== !!Clerk.user?

meaning that currently, isSignedIn cannot be used to check if the user is fully authenticated or not.
The user has fully authenticated even with a pending status. Still, they have pending tasks to complete, eg: After sign-in, complete all factors but FAPI returns a pending session for tasks such as having to select an org.
Is this intentional? If yes, could you please provide an example where Clerk.isSignedIn !== !!Clerk.user
Currently, they are the same. This PR treats pending exactly like active to maintain current functionality and to incrementally add protections for it since the feature is gated on FAPI and toggled via Dashboard.
That property was added to avoid relying only on the user object, or Clerk.activeSessions.length > 0 for our internal "signed-in" state checks.
Once we introduce tasks (#5170) -> I'd add another property that specifically checks if the user has a session that resolved all pending tasks, something like:
// Would resolve to `false` for session.status === 'pending' // Would resolve to `true` for session.status === 'active'if(Clerk.hasValidSession){clerk.mountUserButton(userbuttonDiv)}else{clerk.mountSignIn(signInDiv)}
As a syntax sugar so that developers don't have to manually check for the session statuses on custom flows as well.

I actually acknowledged that I misplaced "Clerk.user shouldn't be used to determine if the user has fully authenticated or not" statement and updated the changeset here
isSignedIn doesn't necessarily replace Clerk.user, but it does act like a syntax sugar to deprecate any manual references to Clerk.client.activeSessions.length > 0, !!Clerk.user or !!Clerk.session

nikosdouvlis · 2025-02-18T09:42:52Z

The isSignedIn property makes sense to me!
In the PR description, you mention that:
Clerk.user shouldn't be used to determine if the user has fully authenticated or not
But the logic in the Client resource tells me that isSignedIn is going to be true if the current session is active or pending, meaning that currently, isSignedIn cannot be used to check if the user is fully authenticated or not.
Is this intentional? If yes, could you please provide an example where Clerk.isSignedIn !== !!Clerk.user?

meaning that currently, isSignedIn cannot be used to check if the user is fully authenticated or not.
The user has fully authenticated even with a pending status. Still, they have pending tasks to complete, eg: After sign-in, complete all factors but FAPI returns a pending session for tasks such as having to select an org.
Is this intentional? If yes, could you please provide an example where Clerk.isSignedIn !== !!Clerk.user
Currently, they are the same. This PR treats pending exactly like active to maintain current functionality and to incrementally add protections for it since the feature is gated on FAPI and toggled via Dashboard.
That property was added to avoid relying only on the user object, or Clerk.activeSessions.length > 0 for our internal "signed-in" state checks.
Once we introduce tasks (#5170) -> I'd add another property that specifically checks if the user has a session that resolved all pending tasks, something like:
// Would resolve to `false` for session.status === 'pending' // Would resolve to `true` for session.status === 'active'if(Clerk.hasValidSession){clerk.mountUserButton(userbuttonDiv)}else{clerk.mountSignIn(signInDiv)}
As a syntax sugar so that developers don't have to manually check for the session statuses on custom flows as well.

I actually acknowledged that I misplaced "Clerk.user shouldn't be used to determine if the user has fully authenticated or not" statement and updated the changeset here
isSignedIn doesn't necessarily replace Clerk.user, but it does act like a syntax sugar to deprecate any manual references to Clerk.client.activeSessions.length > 0, !!Clerk.user or !!Clerk.session

nikosdouvlis · 2025-02-18T09:42:52Z

The isSignedIn property makes sense to me!
In the PR description, you mention that:
Clerk.user shouldn't be used to determine if the user has fully authenticated or not
But the logic in the Client resource tells me that isSignedIn is going to be true if the current session is active or pending, meaning that currently, isSignedIn cannot be used to check if the user is fully authenticated or not.
Is this intentional? If yes, could you please provide an example where Clerk.isSignedIn !== !!Clerk.user?

meaning that currently, isSignedIn cannot be used to check if the user is fully authenticated or not.
The user has fully authenticated even with a pending status. Still, they have pending tasks to complete, eg: After sign-in, complete all factors but FAPI returns a pending session for tasks such as having to select an org.
Is this intentional? If yes, could you please provide an example where Clerk.isSignedIn !== !!Clerk.user
Currently, they are the same. This PR treats pending exactly like active to maintain current functionality and to incrementally add protections for it since the feature is gated on FAPI and toggled via Dashboard.
That property was added to avoid relying only on the user object, or Clerk.activeSessions.length > 0 for our internal "signed-in" state checks.
Once we introduce tasks (#5170) -> I'd add another property that specifically checks if the user has a session that resolved all pending tasks, something like:
// Would resolve to `false` for session.status === 'pending' // Would resolve to `true` for session.status === 'active'if(Clerk.hasValidSession){clerk.mountUserButton(userbuttonDiv)}else{clerk.mountSignIn(signInDiv)}
As a syntax sugar so that developers don't have to manually check for the session statuses on custom flows as well.

I actually acknowledged that I misplaced "Clerk.user shouldn't be used to determine if the user has fully authenticated or not" statement and updated the changeset here
isSignedIn doesn't necessarily replace Clerk.user, but it does act like a syntax sugar to deprecate any manual references to Clerk.client.activeSessions.length > 0, !!Clerk.user or !!Clerk.session

nikosdouvlis · 2025-02-18T09:42:52Z

The isSignedIn property makes sense to me!
In the PR description, you mention that:
Clerk.user shouldn't be used to determine if the user has fully authenticated or not
But the logic in the Client resource tells me that isSignedIn is going to be true if the current session is active or pending, meaning that currently, isSignedIn cannot be used to check if the user is fully authenticated or not.
Is this intentional? If yes, could you please provide an example where Clerk.isSignedIn !== !!Clerk.user?

meaning that currently, isSignedIn cannot be used to check if the user is fully authenticated or not.
The user has fully authenticated even with a pending status. Still, they have pending tasks to complete, eg: After sign-in, complete all factors but FAPI returns a pending session for tasks such as having to select an org.
Is this intentional? If yes, could you please provide an example where Clerk.isSignedIn !== !!Clerk.user
Currently, they are the same. This PR treats pending exactly like active to maintain current functionality and to incrementally add protections for it since the feature is gated on FAPI and toggled via Dashboard.
That property was added to avoid relying only on the user object, or Clerk.activeSessions.length > 0 for our internal "signed-in" state checks.
Once we introduce tasks (#5170) -> I'd add another property that specifically checks if the user has a session that resolved all pending tasks, something like:
// Would resolve to `false` for session.status === 'pending' // Would resolve to `true` for session.status === 'active'if(Clerk.hasValidSession){clerk.mountUserButton(userbuttonDiv)}else{clerk.mountSignIn(signInDiv)}
As a syntax sugar so that developers don't have to manually check for the session statuses on custom flows as well.

I actually acknowledged that I misplaced "Clerk.user shouldn't be used to determine if the user has fully authenticated or not" statement and updated the changeset here
isSignedIn doesn't necessarily replace Clerk.user, but it does act like a syntax sugar to deprecate any manual references to Clerk.client.activeSessions.length > 0, !!Clerk.user or !!Clerk.session

nikosdouvlis · 2025-02-18T09:42:52Z

The isSignedIn property makes sense to me!
In the PR description, you mention that:
Clerk.user shouldn't be used to determine if the user has fully authenticated or not
But the logic in the Client resource tells me that isSignedIn is going to be true if the current session is active or pending, meaning that currently, isSignedIn cannot be used to check if the user is fully authenticated or not.
Is this intentional? If yes, could you please provide an example where Clerk.isSignedIn !== !!Clerk.user?

meaning that currently, isSignedIn cannot be used to check if the user is fully authenticated or not.
The user has fully authenticated even with a pending status. Still, they have pending tasks to complete, eg: After sign-in, complete all factors but FAPI returns a pending session for tasks such as having to select an org.
Is this intentional? If yes, could you please provide an example where Clerk.isSignedIn !== !!Clerk.user
Currently, they are the same. This PR treats pending exactly like active to maintain current functionality and to incrementally add protections for it since the feature is gated on FAPI and toggled via Dashboard.
That property was added to avoid relying only on the user object, or Clerk.activeSessions.length > 0 for our internal "signed-in" state checks.
Once we introduce tasks (#5170) -> I'd add another property that specifically checks if the user has a session that resolved all pending tasks, something like:
// Would resolve to `false` for session.status === 'pending' // Would resolve to `true` for session.status === 'active'if(Clerk.hasValidSession){clerk.mountUserButton(userbuttonDiv)}else{clerk.mountSignIn(signInDiv)}
As a syntax sugar so that developers don't have to manually check for the session statuses on custom flows as well.

I actually acknowledged that I misplaced "Clerk.user shouldn't be used to determine if the user has fully authenticated or not" statement and updated the changeset here
isSignedIn doesn't necessarily replace Clerk.user, but it does act like a syntax sugar to deprecate any manual references to Clerk.client.activeSessions.length > 0, !!Clerk.user or !!Clerk.session

nikosdouvlis · 2025-02-18T09:42:52Z

The isSignedIn property makes sense to me!
In the PR description, you mention that:
Clerk.user shouldn't be used to determine if the user has fully authenticated or not
But the logic in the Client resource tells me that isSignedIn is going to be true if the current session is active or pending, meaning that currently, isSignedIn cannot be used to check if the user is fully authenticated or not.
Is this intentional? If yes, could you please provide an example where Clerk.isSignedIn !== !!Clerk.user?

meaning that currently, isSignedIn cannot be used to check if the user is fully authenticated or not.
The user has fully authenticated even with a pending status. Still, they have pending tasks to complete, eg: After sign-in, complete all factors but FAPI returns a pending session for tasks such as having to select an org.
Is this intentional? If yes, could you please provide an example where Clerk.isSignedIn !== !!Clerk.user
Currently, they are the same. This PR treats pending exactly like active to maintain current functionality and to incrementally add protections for it since the feature is gated on FAPI and toggled via Dashboard.
That property was added to avoid relying only on the user object, or Clerk.activeSessions.length > 0 for our internal "signed-in" state checks.
Once we introduce tasks (#5170) -> I'd add another property that specifically checks if the user has a session that resolved all pending tasks, something like:
// Would resolve to `false` for session.status === 'pending' // Would resolve to `true` for session.status === 'active'if(Clerk.hasValidSession){clerk.mountUserButton(userbuttonDiv)}else{clerk.mountSignIn(signInDiv)}
As a syntax sugar so that developers don't have to manually check for the session statuses on custom flows as well.

I actually acknowledged that I misplaced "Clerk.user shouldn't be used to determine if the user has fully authenticated or not" statement and updated the changeset here
isSignedIn doesn't necessarily replace Clerk.user, but it does act like a syntax sugar to deprecate any manual references to Clerk.client.activeSessions.length > 0, !!Clerk.user or !!Clerk.session

-Original file line number
+Diff line change
@@ -0,0 +1,11 @@
+---
+'@clerk/elements': minor
+'@clerk/shared': minor
+'@clerk/astro': minor
+'@clerk/clerk-react': minor
+'@clerk/types': minor
+'@clerk/clerk-expo': minor
+'@clerk/vue': minor
+---
+Surface new `pending` session as a signed-in state

-Original file line number
+Diff line change
@@ -0,0 +1,20 @@
+---
+'@clerk/clerk-js': minor
+---
+- Initialize new `pending` session status as an signed-in state
+- Deprecate `Clerk.client.activeSessions` in favor of `Clerk.client.signedInSessions`
+- Introduce `Clerk.isSignedIn` property as an explicit signed-in state check, instead of `!!Clerk.session` or `!!Clerk.user`:
+```ts
+- if (Clerk.user) {
++ if (Clerk.isSignedIn) {
+ // Mount user button component
+ document.getElementById('signed-in').innerHTML = `
+ <div id="user-button"></div>
+ `
+ const userbuttonDiv = document.getElementById('user-button')
+ clerk.mountUserButton(userbuttonDiv)
+}

-Original file line number
+Diff line change
@@ -1,9 +1,9 @@
 import type {
- ActiveSessionResource,
  Clerk,
  ClientResource,
  InitialState,
  OrganizationResource,
+ SignedInSessionResource,
  UserResource,
 } from '@clerk/types';
 import { atom, map } from 'nanostores';
@@ Expand All / @@ -12,7 +12,7 @@ export const $csrState = map<{ @@
  isLoaded: boolean;
  client: ClientResource | undefined | null;
  user: UserResource | undefined | null;
- session: ActiveSessionResource | undefined | null;
+ session: SignedInSessionResource | undefined | null;
  organization: OrganizationResource | undefined | null;
 }>({
  isLoaded: false,
@@ Expand Down @@

-Original file line number
+Diff line change
@@ Expand Up / @@ -91,7 +91,7 @@ describe('Clerk singleton - Redirects', () => { @@
  beforeEach(() => {
  mockClientFetch.mockReturnValue(
  Promise.resolve({
-activeSessions: [],
+signedInSessions: [],
  }),
  );
  });
@@ Expand Down @@

-Original file line number
+Diff line change
@@ -0,0 +1,11 @@
+---
+'@clerk/elements': minor
+'@clerk/shared': minor
+'@clerk/astro': minor
+'@clerk/clerk-react': minor
+'@clerk/types': minor
+'@clerk/clerk-expo': minor
+'@clerk/vue': minor
+---
+Surface new `pending` session as a signed-in state

Uh oh!

feat(clerk-js): Handle new session pending status as authenticated state#5136

Uh oh!

feat(clerk-js): Handle new session pending status as authenticated state #5136

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Diff view

Diff view

There are no files selected for viewing

nikosdouvlisFeb 18, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

LauraBeatrisFeb 18, 2025• edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

LauraBeatrisFeb 18, 2025• edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

feat(clerk-js): Handle new session pending status as authenticated state#5136

Uh oh!

feat(clerk-js): Handle new session pending status as authenticated state #5136

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Diff view

Diff view

There are no files selected for viewing

nikosdouvlisFeb 18, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

LauraBeatrisFeb 18, 2025• edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

LauraBeatrisFeb 18, 2025• edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

feat(clerk-js): Handle new session pending status as authenticated state#5136

Uh oh!

feat(clerk-js): Handle new session pending status as authenticated state #5136

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Diff view

Diff view

There are no files selected for viewing

nikosdouvlisFeb 18, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

LauraBeatrisFeb 18, 2025• edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

LauraBeatrisFeb 18, 2025• edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

feat(clerk-js): Handle new session pending status as authenticated state#5136

Uh oh!

feat(clerk-js): Handle new session pending status as authenticated state #5136

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Diff view

Diff view

There are no files selected for viewing

nikosdouvlisFeb 18, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

LauraBeatrisFeb 18, 2025• edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

LauraBeatrisFeb 18, 2025• edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

feat(clerk-js): Handle new session `pending` status as authenticated state#5136

feat(clerk-js): Handle new session `pending` status as authenticated state #5136

LauraBeatrisFeb 18, 2025•
edited
Loading

LauraBeatrisFeb 18, 2025•
edited
Loading

feat(clerk-js): Handle new session `pending` status as authenticated state#5136

feat(clerk-js): Handle new session `pending` status as authenticated state #5136

LauraBeatrisFeb 18, 2025•
edited
Loading

LauraBeatrisFeb 18, 2025•
edited
Loading

feat(clerk-js): Handle new session `pending` status as authenticated state#5136

feat(clerk-js): Handle new session `pending` status as authenticated state #5136

LauraBeatrisFeb 18, 2025•
edited
Loading

LauraBeatrisFeb 18, 2025•
edited
Loading

feat(clerk-js): Handle new session `pending` status as authenticated state#5136

feat(clerk-js): Handle new session `pending` status as authenticated state #5136

LauraBeatrisFeb 18, 2025•
edited
Loading

LauraBeatrisFeb 18, 2025•
edited
Loading

feat(clerk-js): Handle new session `pending` status as authenticated state#5136

feat(clerk-js): Handle new session `pending` status as authenticated state #5136

LauraBeatrisFeb 18, 2025•
edited
Loading

LauraBeatrisFeb 18, 2025•
edited
Loading

feat(clerk-js): Handle new session `pending` status as authenticated state#5136

feat(clerk-js): Handle new session `pending` status as authenticated state #5136

LauraBeatrisFeb 18, 2025•
edited
Loading

LauraBeatrisFeb 18, 2025•
edited
Loading