Bug: HTTP CREATE not working when using TOKEN auth

[gander]

Describe the bug

Even though I successfully complete the token authorization and send a request to create a user, the record is not created.

Steps to reproduce

Follow instructions of:

• Integrate Auth0 as an Authentication Provider
• [BUG][DOCS] Integrate Auth0 as an Authentication Provider docs.surrealdb.com#543

Working example: https://surrealdb-auth0-examples.pages.dev/

Expected behaviour

Create and return user record.

SurrealDB version

1.5.0 for linux amd64

Contact Details

adam.gasowski@gander.pl

Is there an existing issue for this?

• I have searched the existing issues

Code of Conduct

• I agree to follow this project's Code of Conduct

[gguillemas]

Hi @gander! Thank you for reporting this issue as well as surrealdb/docs.surrealdb.com#543, which I will address separately. Specially, thank you for providing a sandbox to help with reproducing this issue.

Can you share the output of INFO FOR DATABASE and INFO FOR SCOPE? It seems like the permissions clauses may not be matching the claims in your token, so both the SELECT and CREATE queries are returning empty. If you try and manually create a user in SurrealDB, does the SELECT query still return empty? If so, I would say this is most likely a problem with the permissions clauses failing to evaluate to true.

[gguillemas]

Looking at the code, I may have found the reason for your issue. All claims that are expected by SurrealDB accept the namespace prefix and are mapped to their original name, so https://surrealdb.com/ns becomes accessible through $token.ns. However, custom claims are extracted from the token as is, so https://surrealdb.com/custom_claim would become accessible through $token.https://surrealdb.com/custom_claim, which I am not sure would even parse in SurrealQL. You may try to access the custom claims in this way in your permissions check to work around the the issue, but I think we should strip the namespace prefix as well for custom claims whenever present so they can be accessed more naturally. I will look into this next week 👍

Thank you again for your detailed report!

[gander]

@gguillemas This makes the implementation fully working:

DEFINE TABLE user TYPE ANY SCHEMAFULL PERMISSIONS FOR select, create, update, delete WHERE $scope = 'user' AND $token.aud CONTAINS 'https://gander.eu.auth0.com/api/v2/' AND $token.aud CONTAINS 'https://gander.eu.auth0.com/userinfo' AND email = $token['https://surrealdb.com/email'] AND $token['https://surrealdb.com/email_verified'] = true

[gander]

@gguillemas you will still use my working example because I wanted to continue working.

[gguillemas]

If you are asking whether or not the provided implementation will work after the fix is merged, the answer would be no, since the prefix will be stripped and you will be able to use the "correct" way of accessing the namespaced claims:

DEFINE TABLE user TYPE ANY SCHEMAFULL PERMISSIONS FOR select, create, update, delete WHERE $scope = 'user' AND $token.aud CONTAINS 'https://gander.eu.auth0.com/api/v2/' AND $token.aud CONTAINS 'https://gander.eu.auth0.com/userinfo' AND email = $token.email AND $token.email_verified = true

On second thought, I will update the PR to also include the claim with the full namespace prefix to keep backward compatibility on 1.X and port the fix without that only to 2.X. In this way, your current code will continue working.

Let me know if I did not correctly understand what you meant.

TL;DR: I will try to keep backward compatibility. You can assume that the code you shared will continue working unless I am unable to make it so. Check on #4061 for updates!

[gguillemas]

I can confirm that I have been able to keep backward compatibility and your code will still work in 1.5.1 when we release the fix. However, I would still recommend accessing the claims by their canonical name (i.e. without the namespace prefix) as that will be the only way to do so in version 2.X.

[gander]

@gguillemas No, I wanted to continue working on my application as it works, i.e. with a prefix. I'm wondering if you'll need a preview of this application for anything else? The application is a Proof of Concept and Work in Progress

[gguillemas]

Correct, you can continue relying on your working code, we do not want to break the current behavior until 2.0 👍
I don't think I will need the preview any more, so you can take it down if you want to. Thank you, it was very helpful.