Possibility for Basic Auth

[boazpoolman]

Bug report

Required System information

• Node.js version: v18.18.2
• NPM version: 9.8.1
• Strapi version: 4.19.0
• Database: Postgres
• Operating system: Mac
• Is your project Javascript or Typescript: Typescript

Describe the bug

I'm trying to add Basic Auth (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_access_authentication) to my Strapi application, but I'm met with the following issue when I do so: https://forum.strapi.io/t/infinite-redirect-loop-first-admin/38299/2

Steps to reproduce the behavior

1. Deploy Strapi
2. Add Basic Auth to the domain

Expected behavior

I would expect this to work, but instead I'm getting the error as described in the forum post.

Code snippets

The problem is with the fetchClient. In there the Authorization header is set to Bearer ${auth.getToken()}. Because that header doesn't include the Basic auth this problem occurs.

Proposed solution

We could probably include both Basic auth AND Bearer token in the Authorization header.
If you guys agree with this solution I could write up a PR.

Additional context

I've tried setting the url in the config/server.js to include the Basic auth in the URL like so: http://username:password@127.0.0.1:1337 but that didn't work.

[strapi-bot]

This issue has been mentioned on Strapi Community Forum. There might be relevant details there:

https://forum.strapi.io/t/infinite-redirect-loop-first-admin/38299/3

[github-actions]

This is a templated message

Hello @boazpoolman,

First thank you for reporting this feature need.
To manage feature requests and the Strapi roadmap, we are using Canny.
You will be able to access the Public Roadmap here: https://feedback.strapi.io.

In your message, please mention the URL of this thread in case some messages are posted there. But the most important is to have your feedback posted on our feedback/roadmap site.
The product team is reading EVERY comment, that really helps us to develop the project in the right direction. We are keeping all feature requests and project insights in one place, our feedback website.

In order to keep our GitHub issues clean and for valid bug reports this issue will be marked as closed, but please feel free to continue the discussion with other community members here.

Thank you for your insight and have a good day.

[boazpoolman]

I would consider this a bug, but I can live with the categorization "Feature request".

Though could you still respond to my proposed solution?
This seems like a really small fix to make this work.