Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Add documentation about changes in fastify.jwt object while using namespaces #286

Open
2 tasks done
jmartinacu opened this issue Apr 11, 2023 · 3 comments
Open
2 tasks done
Labels
documentation Improvements or additions to documentation good first issue Good for newcomers

Comments

@jmartinacu
Copy link

Prerequisites

  • I have written a descriptive issue title
  • I have searched existing issues to ensure the issue has not already been raised

Issue

Hello, I was using fastify-jwt to implement a authorization strategy with accessToken and refreshToken using the namespace feature.
But when I had to use the functionality of fastify.jwt instead of the default function <namespace>JwtVerify or <namespace>JwtSign defined in the documentation, there wasn't any information about the changes that are applied to fastify.jwt when you use namespaces.

@Eomm
Copy link
Member

Eomm commented Apr 12, 2023

Thanks for reporting!
Would you like to send a Pull Request to address this issue?

@Eomm Eomm added good first issue Good for newcomers documentation Improvements or additions to documentation labels Apr 12, 2023
@piotr-cz
Copy link

piotr-cz commented Jul 6, 2023

The documentation has been updated along with #297.
It may cover your issue

@limtis0
Copy link

limtis0 commented Mar 14, 2024

I suppose it would be good to know about how to use .jwtVerify() with namespaces, because all of the .{namespace}JwtVerify functions require token: string, contrary to the default function (They are bound to FastifyInstance, instead of FastifyRequest, as well). It is also unclear on how to use it with cookies, for example.

I can set up a new Issue if this is not an intended behavior.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
documentation Improvements or additions to documentation good first issue Good for newcomers
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants