Skip to content

Conversation

@aaronware
Copy link
Contributor

I might need some support here as I wasn't able to figure out the most efficient way to test my changes based on how this all works within a worker? Any shove in the right direction would be greatly appreciated for proper testing.

@aaronware
Copy link
Contributor Author

I also don't really understand why it had my other pull requests in the commit logs... No changes for those files are actually in this pull request

@aaronware
Copy link
Contributor Author

Closes #619

@yusukebe
Copy link
Member

Hi @aaronware

Thanks for the PR. I think it would be fine if you tested it with the npm link though we should add more test codes.

@monoald Do you have any thoughts on this?

@aaronware
Copy link
Contributor Author

Thanks @yusukebe , I got pulled away from this onto some items but I should have some time over the next week to confirm it's all working properly within the worker. @yusukebe I'll keep an eye out for any recommendations/changes you or @monoald have and adjust the PR as needed

@Titou325
Copy link

Titou325 commented Mar 18, 2025

Hi! We are also interested in this behaviour to configure long-running sessions (eg. polling GMail on behalf of a user). Right now the flow does not expose the refresh token (although it is received), but could very easily when correctly configured with prompt: "consent" and access_type: "offline".

It is hard to monkey patch at this time as this is internal to AuthFlow. I don't know if this PR is still under consideration or if I should open a new one to cover this use case.

@yusukebe
Copy link
Member

Hi @Titou325

This PR is not progressing, so creating a new PR is okay. If so, I will review it. It would be better if you added proper tests there.

@freckletonj
Copy link

agreed, it'd be nice if we had support for google refresh tokens

@yusukebe yusukebe changed the title Allow for refresh tokens to be used via access_type "offline" in Issue/#619 feat(oauth-providers): Allow for refresh tokens to be used via access_type "offline" in Issue/#619 Jun 30, 2025
@yusukebe
Copy link
Member

Hi @aaronware

Can you still work on this PR? I think this feature is okay, but I want to do two things:

  • Writing tests
  • Update README.md

If these are done, I'll review them!

@aaronware
Copy link
Contributor Author

@yusukebe I can pick this up again in the next week or so

@changeset-bot
Copy link

changeset-bot bot commented Oct 15, 2025

🦋 Changeset detected

Latest commit: 4c89a8c

The changes in this PR will be included in the next version bump.

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

@autofix-ci
Copy link
Contributor

autofix-ci bot commented Oct 15, 2025

Hi! I'm autofix logoautofix.ci, a bot that automatically fixes trivial issues such as code formatting in pull requests.

I would like to apply some automated changes to this pull request, but it looks like I don't have the necessary permissions to do so. To get this pull request into a mergeable state, please do one of the following two things:

  1. Allow edits by maintainers for your pull request, and then re-trigger CI (for example by pushing a new commit).
  2. Manually fix the issues identified for your pull request (see the GitHub Actions output for details on what I would like to change).

@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Oct 16, 2025

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 25.00000% with 15 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 82.29%. Comparing base (c97d834) to head (4c89a8c).
⚠️ Report is 5 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines Patch % Lines
...s/oauth-providers/src/providers/google/authFlow.ts 25.00% 11 Missing and 4 partials ⚠️

❌ Your patch check has failed because the patch coverage (25.00%) is below the target coverage (80.00%). You can increase the patch coverage or adjust the target coverage.

Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #634      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   83.41%   82.29%   -1.12%     
==========================================
  Files         102      103       +1     
  Lines        3352     3401      +49     
  Branches      867      883      +16     
==========================================
+ Hits         2796     2799       +3     
- Misses        466      500      +34     
- Partials       90      102      +12     
Flag Coverage Δ
oauth-providers 20.16% <25.00%> (-0.07%) ⬇️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

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

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
  • ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
  • 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants