Is there a topic or PR I can read to under what is upcoming when the tutorial and other docs mention how redwood will “handle auth”. Would like to understand how it compares to Go-TrueAuth.
Hi @viperfx .
RedwoodJS supports the GoTrue library and as well as Supabase which uses GoTrue.
Redwood itself is not “implementing” or building an authentication service, but instead it supports several major, widely used Authentication services and its clients (Auth0, Magic, Firebase, Netlify Identity, Supabase, GoTrue, etc.)
People are currently working on adding more providers to Firebase (and I think that will be in the next release so can use Firebase for Google, GitHub, Facebook, Apple etc @danny ) and @jeliasson is working on an Azure ActiveDirectory provider.
Best place to look is in the docs and Roadmap and then in GitHub issues for those tagged with the auth topic.
Got it ok. So, the reason I asked is because the docs seemed to suggest something new is coming related to Authorization and auth.
See this text from https://redwoodjs.com/tutorial/authentication
If you inspect the contents of
currentUseryou’ll see it contains an array called
roles. On the Netlify Identity dashboard you can give your user a collection of roles, which are just strings like “admin” or “guest”. Using this array of roles you could create a very rudimentary role-based authentication system. Unless you are in dire need of this simple role checking, we recommend waiting for the Redwood solution, coming soon!
So I was concerned I would implement a solution I liked with GoTrue, but it get deprecated or not the recommended way of doing things in near future.
Ah, I see.
Guess what I worked on that implementation and there’s a cookbook now for RBAC that walks through how it works.
I’ve used it both in using Netlify Identity (which is GoTrue under covers) and Auth0.
Oh awesome. I followed the Netlify Identity steps inside the tutorial, and actually about to rewrite it to go over the steps in https://redwoodjs.com/cookbook/gotrue-auth so I can have more control over the UI and logic.
Would your RBAC cookbook work well if I follow it after doing the gotrue auth steps?
Should the wording in the tutorial be changed?
I know I was a little confused recently when looking at all the different authentication/authorization options available and I’ve been following this stuff for months, so I would say a definite yes to making the current state of auth more clear.
Maybe we should approach the docs from a use case perspective rather than an options perspective.
For example, not that there is Auth0 and Magic and Firebase (with Facebook) or Netlify with Github or Firebase with Github … which is downright perplexing. … but rather:
I want to give my users a passwordless login
- Auth supports that, here’s how
- Magic supports that
I want to have my users login with GitHub
- Auth0 can
- Netlify Identity can
- Supabase can (once upgraded to its 1.0 client)
I want role access built in
- Netlify Identity can
- Auth0 can
- Magic can’t etc
Something like that?
I really like that, for me the confusion between authentication and authorization was part of my problem so I think this solution would help me out for sure.
Especially if you don’t have any prior familiarity with these different solutions it’s not very helpful to just see a list of them.
I like the use case approach. Maybe there could be a matrix over the use cases, like the awesome work done in the RBAC cookbook? This would allow continue the use of option based (as I guess the Authentication providers will grow) while still have dedicated sections. Heck, it might even be worth separate the authentication providers into separate pages.