Route group Sanctum guard #957
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This addresses my issue in #956.
I believe there is a problem in the livewire and inertia route files with respect to using the default auth middleware instead of the auth:sanctum middleware which is used in the stubs for the dashboard route. This problem prevents me from using the new auth guard I've created to view the profile route because it does not respect the sanctum guard and there is no other way I see to change what guard this route group uses. I've tested this change and when implemented it allows me to correctly access the profile route as expected with my new auth guard.
I believe this could also be solved in a similar way to Fortify:
config('fortify.auth_middleware', 'auth').':'.config('fortify.guard')but Jetstream doesn't seem to use the more complicated system so I believe defaulting to using auth:sanctum is appropriate if the intention is to encourage people to use sanctum as per the built in dashboard route.