Amplify V6 -- signin and confirmsignin cannot work separatly? about amplify-js

[zcemycl]

@cwomack I can confirm it is similar, except that issue is from v5 amplify.sendCustomChallengeAnswer . But v5 can integrate nicer with amazon-cognito-identity-js (v2) to solve that issue.

My current issue is based on v6 and i can't see any examples of using amplify v6 and @aws-sdk/client-cognito-identity-provider v3 together.

[cwomack]

Following up to say we'll keep both issues open and separate for now, because of the extra context here regarding the new/cross tab functionality described.

[cwomack]

Hello, @zcemycl and thanks for opening this issue. You are correct that confirmSignIn() currently needs to be called alongside signIn() due to the session information and challengeResponse being required as part of the confirmation flow.

Are you able to provide more context around what the use case is here or why you're needing to call these separately in the authentication flow? Thanks!

[zcemycl]

@cwomack for example, this one from aws tutorial https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/mobile/implementing-passwordless-email-authentication-with-amazon-cognito/ .

• You login the website by providing email that is in the user pool.
• the custom auth flow allows that user by issuing an auth challenge which is sending the user email a magic link.
• If the user clicks on the magic link, it supposes to send a confirm auth challenge to custom auth flow to verify the user identity.
• BUT since clicking the magic link or copying magic link to the browser will lead refreshing the page, the original signin function is discontinued.

I can replicate that tutorial with "@aws-sdk/client-cognito-identity-provider" but "aws-amplify" is not working.

[cwomack]

Related to #10469.

@zcemycl can you review that issue I linked above to see if it would encompass what you're asking for in this issue?

[cwomack]

@zcemycl, thanks for the quick response! I've got this marked as a feature request and will review this internally with the work that is currently underway with the other issue. This may be considered a duplicate if that's the case, but we'll capture the scope (and of course v6 aspect) of what's in this issue if we consider them duplicates.