Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
fix(expo): align iOS Google sign-in defaults - #8903
Conversation
🦋 Changeset detectedLatest commit: de4c6b3 The changes in this PR will be included in the next version bump. This PR includes changesets to release 1 package
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 |
The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for GitHub.
|
No actionable comments were generated in the recent review. 🎉 ℹ️ Recent review info⚙️ Run configurationConfiguration used: Repository YAML (base), Repository UI (inherited) Review profile: CHILL Plan: Pro Run ID: 📒 Files selected for processing (2)
📝 WalkthroughWalkthrough
ChangesiOS Google Sign-In fixes
Estimated code review effort🎯 2 (Simple) | ⏱️ ~5 minutes Possibly related PRs
Poem
🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 4 | ❌ 1❌ Failed checks (1 warning)
✅ Passed checks (4 passed)
✏️ Tip: You can configure your own custom pre-merge checks in the settings. ✨ Finishing Touches📝 Generate docstrings
Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out. Comment |
@clerk/astro@clerk/backend@clerk/chrome-extension@clerk/clerk-js@clerk/expo@clerk/expo-passkeys@clerk/express@clerk/fastify@clerk/hono@clerk/localizations@clerk/nextjs@clerk/nuxt@clerk/react@clerk/react-router@clerk/shared@clerk/tanstack-react-start@clerk/testing@clerk/ui@clerk/upgrade@clerk/vuecommit: |
4536864 to
de4c6b3CompareAPI Changes Report
Summary
No API Changes DetectedAll packages have stable APIs with no detected changes. Report generated by Break Check Last ran on |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit:de4c6b380c
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
| let iosClientId = params["iosClientId"] as? String | ||
| let webClientId = self.nonEmptyClientId(params["webClientId"] as? String) | ||
| let iosClientId = self.nonEmptyClientId(params["iosClientId"] as? String) | ||
| self.clientId = iosClientId ?? webClientId |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
When webClientId is whitespace but iosClientId is set, nonEmptyClientId turns the web ID into nil, but this fallback still marks the module configured from the iOS ID and then passes nil as serverClientID to GIDConfiguration. The shared hook can pass this case because it only checks !webClientId before sending the returned ID token to Clerk as google_one_tap (packages/expo/src/hooks/useSignInWithGoogle.shared.ts:79 and :144-146), while ConfigureParams.webClientId is required and documented as the iOS serverClientID/token audience (packages/expo/src/google-one-tap/types.ts:6-10), so the flow proceeds with the wrong token audience instead of preserving the intended NOT_CONFIGURED path.
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
| } | ||
| let filterByAuthorized = params?["filterByAuthorizedAccounts"] as? Bool ?? false | ||
| let filterByAuthorized = params?["filterByAuthorizedAccounts"] as? Bool ?? true |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
With this default flipped to true, an iOS caller that omits filterByAuthorizedAccounts now expects the saved-credentials path described by ClerkGoogleOneTapSignIn.signIn, but the native code only converts that flag into an optional hint from GIDSignIn.sharedInstance.currentUser. On a cold launch or fresh install where no current user has been restored, the hint is nil and signIn(withPresenting:) opens the full interactive Google picker instead of returning the NO_SAVED_CREDENTIAL_FOUND/noSavedCredentialFound path that Android and the JS wrapper expose for this default.
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
Summary
Follow-up to #8901 for the two CodeRabbit comments we deferred there.
Testing
Summary by CodeRabbit