fix(core): add error code to SignInResponse

[kaioduarte]

☕️ Reasoning

Makes code property from custom error available on the client side. See:

• feat: customizable authorize() error #9871 (comment)

🧢 Checklist

• Documentation
• Tests
• Ready to be merged

🎫 Affected issues

📌 Resources

• Security guidelines
• Contributing guidelines
• Code of conduct
• Contributing to Open Source

[vercel]

The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for Git ↗︎

Name	Status	Preview	Comments	Updated (UTC)
auth-docs	✅ Ready (Inspect)	Visit Preview	💬 Add feedback	Jun 2, 2024 4:39am

2 Ignored Deployments

Name	Status	Preview	Comments	Updated (UTC)
next-auth-docs	⬜️ Ignored (Inspect)	Visit Preview		Jun 2, 2024 4:39am
proxy	⬜️ Ignored (Inspect)	Visit Preview		Jun 2, 2024 4:39am

[vercel]

@kaioduarte is attempting to deploy a commit to the authjs Team on Vercel.

A member of the Team first needs to authorize it.

[jhoanborges]

+1

[mrevanzak]

+1 need this too

[kaioduarte]

@ndom91 @ThangHuuVu can we have your review on this one?

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 0% with 5 lines in your changes are missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 40.76%. Comparing base (656f1ec) to head (63e66ed).

Files	Patch %	Lines
packages/next-auth/src/react.tsx	0.00%	2 Missing ⚠️
packages/next-auth/src/webauthn.ts	0.00%	2 Missing ⚠️
packages/next-auth/src/lib/client.ts	0.00%	1 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main   #10943      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   40.77%   40.76%   -0.01%     
==========================================
  Files         177      177              
  Lines       28022    28027       +5     
  Branches     1238     1244       +6     
==========================================
  Hits        11426    11426              
- Misses      16596    16601       +5     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[ThangHuuVu]

thanks @kaioduarte , merging this & release 🔜

[dml0031]

Another update in the beta 19 may be conflicting with this change. After updating to 5.0.0-beta.19 the only error that gets returned from the authorize method is error?error=Configuration

Tested this by using the exact same code in beta 18 and then beta 19, on 18 it will return CredentialsSignIn as error type and the return url from the credentials endpoint contains both error and code params and the code param just doesnt get parsed by the next-auth/react package and returned to the client.

In 19, the return url from credentials endpoint doesnt contain the code param and the only thing it has is ?error=Configuration but the object returned from the signIn method does contain the code, its just always null no matter what error gets thrown in authorize

Edit: More Clarification

Example error:

Beta 18 Return URL: http://localhost:3000/login?error=CredentialsSignin&code=custom
Beta 19 Return URL: http://localhost:3000/login?error=Configuration

[guimmarques]

Another update in the beta 19 may be conflicting with this change. After updating to 5.0.0-beta.19 the only error that gets returned from the authorize method is error?error=Configuration

Tested this by using the exact same code in beta 18 and then beta 19, on 18 it will return CredentialsSignIn as error type and the return url from the credentials endpoint contains both error and code params and the code param just doesnt get parsed by the next-auth/react package and returned to the client.

In 19, the return url from credentials endpoint doesnt contain the code param and the only thing it has is ?error=Configuration but the object returned from the signIn method does contain the code, its just always null no matter what error gets thrown in authorize

Edit: More Clarification

Example error:

Beta 18 Return URL: http://localhost:3000/login?error=CredentialsSignin&code=custom Beta 19 Return URL: http://localhost:3000/login?error=Configuration

same issue here

[dwalker93]

any updates on this issue?

[kaioduarte]

It seems #11050 caused the regression

cc @ndom91