feat: B2B Node SDK #182
feat: B2B Node SDK #182
Conversation
max-stytch
had a problem deploying
to
integration_tests
GitHub Actions
Failure
max-stytch
had a problem deploying
to
integration_tests
GitHub Actions
Failure
This comment was marked as duplicate.
This comment was marked as duplicate.
Sorry, something went wrong.
lib/b2b/magic_links.ts
Outdated
| export interface LoginOrSignupByEmailResponse extends BaseResponse { | ||
| member_id: string; | ||
| member: Member; | ||
| member_creared: boolean; |
max-stytch
temporarily deployed
to
integration_tests
GitHub Actions
Inactive
| super(config); | ||
|
|
||
| if (!this.fetchConfig.baseURL.endsWith("b2b/")) { | ||
| this.fetchConfig.baseURL += "b2b/"; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is this because we share a baseURL with b2c? Prefer just having two completely separate variables in that case like baseB2BURL to avoid having to do something like this
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Our base URL is our env string - stytch.envs.live or stytch.envs.test - I didn't want to introduce a separate set of envs for B2B, I think that would make things more confusing for end users / harder to document. One other option would be to embed the b2b/ URL in all the b2b-scoped client endpoints
| connection_id: string; | ||
| idp_entity_id?: string; | ||
| display_name?: string; | ||
| attribute_mapping?: Record<string, string>; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Unrelated to these changes - should we be adding validation in api that the value types in attribute_mapping are strings? We reuse the same entitymetadata that allows numeric values for trusted and untrusted metadata on other entities
max-stytch
had a problem deploying
to
integration_tests
GitHub Actions
Failure
max-stytch
temporarily deployed
to
integration_tests
GitHub Actions
Inactive
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.