feat(auth): Implement getUserByProviderId by rsgowman · Pull Request #769 · firebase/firebase-admin-node

rsgowman · 2020-01-20T21:34:22Z

RELEASE NOTE: Added a new getUserByProviderId() to lookup user accounts by their providers.

nrsim · 2020-01-21T15:48:00Z

+ * @return A promise fulfilled with the user data corresponding to the
+ * given provider id.
+ */
+ public getUserByProviderId(providerId: string, providerUid: string): Promise<UserRecord> {


Was the final decision to call this method getUserByProviderId or getUserByProviderUid?

Technically neither, since the final decision hasn't been made yet. :)
But you're quite right that the current state uses Uid. Fixed. (Nice catch.)

@rsgowman Is it solidated? The released name also conflict with the method name I see here
https://firebase.google.com/support/release-notes/admin/node#9.5.0

Hi @Thaina; the final decision here was to use Uid, i.e. getUserByProviderUid. The release notes are incorrect (caused by my description of this PR not being updated to reflect this change). I'll see if I can get that fixed. Thanks for noticing!

nrsim · 2020-01-21T15:50:38Z

 displayName: 'Random User ' + newUserUid,
 photoURL: 'http://www.example.com/' + newUserUid + '/photo.png',
 disabled: false,
+


nit: remove the blank line

nrsim · 2020-01-21T16:34:59Z

 .should.eventually.be.rejected.and.have.property('code', 'auth/user-not-found');
 });

+ it('getUserByProviderId() fails when called with a non-existing federated id', () => {


Add unit tests for invalid provider id/uid here as well?

I think they're already covered by the unit tests. Specifically, these ones:
'should be rejected given no federated id'
'should be rejected given an invalid federated id'
'should be rejected given an invalid federated uid'
(Or have I missed something?)

Sorry, I meant to ask for unit tests in test/unit/auth/auth-api-request.spec.ts.

Oh; I hadn't noticed that. Done.
(More thought required, but I suspect some of those tests may be redundant since we're already effectively testing them from the api level. It might be possible to eliminate some of them.)

nrsim

LGTM overall.

hiranya911

Looks great. Just a few comments to improve readability.

hiranya911 · 2020-02-03T22:08:46Z

+ * @return A promise fulfilled with the user data corresponding to the
+ * given provider id.
+ */
+ public getUserByProviderUid(providerId: string, providerUid: string): Promise<UserRecord> {


Here too. Perhaps provider and providerUid?

This is what was agreed to in the api review, so I'm reluctant to change that. But if we were to do so:
providerId has prior art (UserINfo, AuthProviderConfig, getProviderConfig, deleteProviderConfig, updateProviderConfig) so I'd prefer to leave that alone.
providerUid however does not. Although a bit overloaded, we could use simply uid here instead. I think it's sufficiently clear.
If we do want to change this, we should also revisit the bulk get PR which uses similar names.
wdyt?

I feel pretty positive about providerId and uid. If we are in agreement, let's go ahead and implement that change. This is a non-breaking change for Node.js (but may be a breaking change for languages like C# that allow named arguments in method calls).

I'm not a fan of uid, as it may be confused with Firebase uid (see getUser(uid: string), for example). Having a different name for provider uid would make the distinction explicit.

I'm not 100% sure where this ended up, but at this point, I'm going to go ahead and use Hiranya's suggestion. (But I'm not going to attempt revisiting the bulk get PR.)
However, I haven't changed UserIdentifier.providerUid.

hiranya911

LGTM with the argument rename in the public API pending.

hiranya911 · 2020-02-06T00:10:43Z

 .should.eventually.be.rejected.and.have.property('code', 'auth/user-not-found');
 });

+ it('getUserByProviderUid() fails when called with a non-existing federated id', () => {


s/federated/provider/

egilmorez

LG from the doc perspective with a tiny nit. Thanks!

egilmorez · 2020-02-19T16:43:58Z

 getUserByPhoneNumber(phoneNumber: string): Promise<admin.auth.UserRecord>;

+ /**
+ * Gets the user data for the user corresponding to a given provider id.


Suggest caps like line 1539.

google-cla · 2020-12-21T21:11:43Z

We found a Contributor License Agreement for you (the sender of this pull request), but were unable to find agreements for all the commit author(s) or Co-authors. If you authored these, maybe you used a different email address in the git commits than was used to sign the CLA (login here to double check)? If these were authored by someone else, then they will need to sign a CLA as well, and confirm that they're okay with these being contributed to Google.
In order to pass this check, please resolve this problem and then comment @googlebot I fixed it.. If the bot doesn't comment, it means it doesn't think anything has changed.

ℹ️ Googlers: Go here for more info.

rsgowman added 2 commits January 20, 2020 16:25

Implement getUserByFederatedId()
fa9934b

getAccountByFederatedId -> getAccountByProviderId
b7458e2

rsgowman requested a review from nrsim January 20, 2020 21:37

rsgowman assigned nrsim Jan 20, 2020

nrsim reviewed Jan 21, 2020
View reviewed changes

Comment threadsrc/auth/auth.ts

nrsim reviewed Jan 21, 2020
View reviewed changes

nrsim assigned rsgowman and unassigned nrsim Jan 21, 2020

rsgowman assigned nrsim and unassigned rsgowman Jan 22, 2020

review feedback
4609191

nrsim approved these changes Jan 22, 2020
View reviewed changes

nrsim assigned rsgowman and unassigned nrsim Jan 22, 2020

hiranya911 suggested changes Feb 3, 2020
View reviewed changes

hiranya911 requested a review from egilmorez February 3, 2020 22:14

hiranya911 assigned egilmorez and unassigned rsgowman Feb 3, 2020

review feedback 2
a59ef60

rsgowman assigned hiranya911 Feb 5, 2020

review feedback 3
e9197f9

rsgowman mentioned this pull request Feb 5, 2020
feat(auth): Implement getUserByProviderUid. firebase/firebase-admin-dotnet#142
Open

hiranya911 approved these changes Feb 6, 2020
View reviewed changes

hiranya911 removed their assignment Feb 6, 2020

hiranya911 changed the title ~~Implement getUserByProviderId~~feat(auth): Implement getUserByProviderIdFeb 6, 2020

hiranya911 added the release-note label Feb 6, 2020

egilmorez approved these changes Feb 19, 2020
View reviewed changes

davidhin mentioned this pull request Jul 6, 2024
[Snyk] Upgrade firebase-admin from 9.4.2 to 9.12.0 davidhin/vuldoctor#682
Open

This was referenced Jul 17, 2024
[Snyk] Upgrade firebase-admin from 9.4.2 to 9.12.0 davidhin/vuldoctor#685
Open
[Snyk] Upgrade firebase-admin from 9.4.2 to 9.12.0 davidhin/vuldoctor#687
Open

This was referenced Aug 10, 2024
[Snyk] Upgrade firebase-admin from 9.4.2 to 9.12.0 davidhin/vuldoctor#697
Open
[Snyk] Upgrade firebase-admin from 9.4.2 to 9.12.0 davidhin/vuldoctor#700
Open

This was referenced Aug 28, 2024
[Snyk] Upgrade firebase-admin from 9.4.2 to 9.12.0 davidhin/vuldoctor#707
Open
[Snyk] Upgrade firebase-admin from 9.4.2 to 9.12.0 davidhin/vuldoctor#709
Open

This was referenced Sep 5, 2024
[Snyk] Upgrade firebase-admin from 9.4.2 to 9.12.0 davidhin/vuldoctor#711
Open
[Snyk] Upgrade firebase-admin from 9.4.2 to 9.12.0 davidhin/vuldoctor#712
Open

This was referenced Oct 26, 2024
[Snyk] Upgrade firebase-admin from 9.4.2 to 9.12.0 davidhin/vuldoctor#729
Open
[Snyk] Upgrade firebase-admin from 9.4.2 to 9.12.0 davidhin/vuldoctor#731
Open

davidhin mentioned this pull request Nov 9, 2024
[Snyk] Upgrade firebase-admin from 9.4.2 to 9.12.0 davidhin/vuldoctor#732
Open

Uh oh!

Conversation

rsgowman commented Jan 20, 2020• edited by hiranya911 Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

nrsimJan 21, 2020• 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!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

nrsim left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

hiranya911 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

hiranya911 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

egilmorez left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

google-claBot commented Dec 21, 2020

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

5 participants

rsgowman commented Jan 20, 2020•
edited by hiranya911
Loading

nrsimJan 21, 2020•
edited
Loading