fix: Use correct auth table names (auth.users, auth.user_providers)#1
Open
edunavajas wants to merge 2 commits into
Open
fix: Use correct auth table names (auth.users, auth.user_providers)#1edunavajas wants to merge 2 commits into
edunavajas wants to merge 2 commits into
Conversation
This file contains hidden or 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
1 participant
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
The import and transform scripts reference _accounts and _account_providers, but Insforge uses auth.users and auth.user_providers. This causes the auth import to fail with "relation does not exist".
Similarly, the SQL transform was converting auth.uid() → uid() and REFERENCES "auth"."users" → REFERENCES "_accounts", but Insforge uses the same auth.uid() function and auth.users table — so those transforms aren't needed.
Changes:
Tested with a full local migration (3 users, 4 tables, RLS policies)