laravel / fortify Goto Github PK
View Code? Open in Web Editor NEWBackend controllers and scaffolding for Laravel authentication.
Home Page: https://laravel.com/docs/fortify
License: MIT License
Backend controllers and scaffolding for Laravel authentication.
Home Page: https://laravel.com/docs/fortify
License: MIT License
I'm facing a problem with Fortify Routes knowing that they are not exposed on Auth::routes() like Laravel UI. I want to populate Fortify Routes in a route group to enable route globalization. For instance...
Route::localized(function () {
// Fortify Routes here
});
Verification status message is incorrect
Request email verification to be sent
return $request->wantsJson()
? new Response('', 202)
: back()->with('status', 'verification-link-sent');
Fortify::routes();
We can use this multiple time in route file like this,
Fortify::routes();
Route::prefix(admin)->namespace('Admin')->name('admin.')->group(function () {
Fortify::routes(['register' => false]);
});
Route::prefix(staff)->namespace('Staff')->name('staff.')->group(function () {
Fortify::routes(['register' => false]);
});
The validation in the CreateNewUser class uses the exact same password rules as defined in the PasswordValidationRules trait.
Would it be nice to use the PasswordValidationRules trait in CreateNewUser action?
It's possible to customize AuthController?
Where is the definition of x-jet-input etc in a jestream inertia stack?
I like to place my login endpoints behind a prefixed path. (& honeypot common endpoints 😉 )
I'm surprised to see that both Fortify and Jetstream boot their routes inside src/FortifyServiceProvider
, instead of from a user's route declaration like how Auth::routes()
worked.
fortify/src/FortifyServiceProvider.php
Lines 110 to 118 in 65c695d
Perhaps merging the existing group options with an array found in config/fortify.php
?
'route_options' => [
'prefix' => 'secret', // This makes the login page /secret/login
/* 'domain' => null, */
],
I think it would be nice to have, either a global configuration or a configuration at the feature level to enable only "api" routes.
I am using Fortify with a SPA so I don't need the views shipped with it and it's quite "annoying" when I run php artisan route:list
.
I am ready to start the development if this feature is approved 😄
Please, find examples below:
/*
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Disabling views
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
| ...
|
*/
'disableViews' => false,
or
'features' => [
Features::registration(['disableViews' => true]),
],
When trying to cache the routes a LogicException
is thrown stating that.
Unable to prepare route [register] for serialization. Another route has already been assigned name [register].
Run:
laravel new routenametest--jet --dev
cd routenametest
php artisan route:cache
It would be nice to offer customization options for redirection such as Fortify::redirectAfterLoginUsing($callback)
or Fortify::redirectAfterRegisterUsing($callback)
. This would bring back laravel/ui
redirectTo
capabilities. What do you think ? Do you prefer to encourage people to use custom Response classes and to put them under app/Http/Responses/Fortify
?
Concerning the registration use case, maybe it's pretty common to redirect users to a tour/guide page, so what do you think about a dedicated configuration key to set the path ?
In laravel/ui package we have function guard() to custom guard, can we add it to fortity ?
Hi,
I totally love the default options we've with Laravel Fortify, however it would be nice to be able to change the registered routes uris. Currently you're stuck with the default naming convention which is based on the English language.
In my opinion it would be fantastic to have a configurable option within config/fortify.php
. Lets say something like this:
'routes' => [
'login' => 'inloggen',
'register' => 'registreer',
...
],
My current workout is to not use any registered routes, and create the routes myself in the routes/web.php
file of the Laravel project itself.
When running The laravel installer or jetstream install command, the CreateNewUser Fortify Action generated does not match the stub within the fortify project.
For example. within the fortify package the CreateNewUser Fortify Action uses the proper PasswordValidationRules
trait for the password validator. When that stub is published to my project, the CreateNewUser Action does not use the PasswordValidationRules trait and instead has 'password' => ['required', 'string', new Password, 'confirmed'],
I've tried removing any composer cache but it continues to happen.
``
laravel new laravel8-jet --jet
Select inertia, and no teams
OR
laravel new laravel8-jet
composer require laravel/jetstream
php artisan jetstream:install
Now view the laravel8-jet/app/Actions/Fortify/CreateNewUser file and compare to the package's stub version.
I've also attached a screenshot:
EDIT: This actually looks like it may be a jetstream problem as the CreateNewUser stub within that package looks out of date with Fortify. I will keep this here just in case you decide to keep this open and I'm incorrect but it looks like it's unrelated to this project. Opening a ticket in the jetstream repo: laravel/jetstream#167 Thanks
At the moment it is impossible to verify that the user activated 2fa in his device.
It should be mandatory that the user has to confirm the activation with an actual 2fa code.
This is not possible at the moment because in "Laravel\Fortify\Actions\EnableTwoFactorAuthentication" the database field is filled on activation. The generation of the secret has to be done before and the secret has to be an option in the action so it is possible to check a valid code before the secret is saved to the database.
Would you be interested in a PR that adds webauthn (Security Keys and TouchID) support to Fortify and Jetstream? Would be awesome to have something like this out of the box.
In lot of projects we do have multiple user tables based on requirement, so, it is not feasible to have single user table in this scenario. Result is multiple tables in database storing credentials for different roles.
In this case till now we used to specify custom guard in config/auth.php in Laravel for each credential table and use them to build multi-auth system. However, Jetstream is using single guard specified in Fortify.php.
Request: Please provide option to choose guard specified in config/auth.php to create a multiauth system instead of using single guard from fortify.php. At present, we are forced to use only one guard specified in fortify.php to use in application. Please help !!
It would be nice if it was possible to make it so only logged in users can register new account, prefferably with only one line of code
Hi,
It would be a really nice feature to have if we could call a custom function once the user is authenticated successfully. An example would be to store some data in session variables once the user logs in to the application. A similar function while logging out would also be helpful, such as clearing the session variables on user logging out.
Thanks
I want to fire an event to update last login time can you suggest me the best way to fire an event once authentication passes?
I am new to fortify, but would like to require a password contain at least one of a configurable set of symbols like '#', '$', '%', '_', '-','+'
, etc.
I was looking at the source, and there is a Fortify Rule named Password, and it's missing the logic I want/need. I could write another Fortify Rule to take this into account, but it would nice to have it out of the box in order to create really strong passwords.
Also, is there someplace special where these rules ought to go, specially if we want to tweak the current ruleset?
it would be great if we can add multiple login using custom guard. is that possible? currently i still doing the old way on admin authentication.
It would be handy if there was a way to customize the logout function .!
so if we have multiple guard then we can limit the function to log out the user only not the admins.
Im looking into adding Single Sign On support in Fortify. If we had the ability to add extra steps in the pipeline shown in the below code from Laravel\Fortify\Http\Controllers\AuthenticatedSessionController
, then its extensible to add SSO or other auth methods into the mix.
public function store(LoginRequest $request)
{
return (new Pipeline(app()))->send($request)->through(array_filter([
config('fortify.limiters.login') ? null : EnsureLoginIsNotThrottled::class,
RedirectIfTwoFactorAuthenticatable::class,
AttemptToAuthenticate::class,
PrepareAuthenticatedSession::class,
]))->then(function ($request) {
return app(LoginResponse::class);
});
}
agree?
Hello,
this is more an enhancement suggestion and not an actual bug. It seems that most users would expect that route('forgot-password')
would work in an href (or form action). However, the name of the route is password.request
for GET requests and password.email
for POSTs. I think this is somehow misleading and it could be improved.
Thank you.
fortify/src/Rules/Password.php
Line 76 in 13d1833
Revieving this line (also 70, 72, 74)
return __('The :attribute must be at least '.$this->length.' characters.');
it's very difficult translate with the param. Isn't it easier to write it as
return __('The :attribute must be at least :value characters.', ['value' => $this->length]);
?
We can conditionally redirect the user to different routes based on user attributes by creating a custom LoginResponse
and binding our own response instead of the Fortify response.
Can we have the same for the TwoFactorLoginResponse
so that this can be replaced also?
I haven't found any ways to override the register, login and logout paths. For some projects it would be nice to use localized paths (e.g. l8.test/logg-inn).
Would it be a solution to add the paths to the fority.php config file:
'paths' => [
'create_user' => '/opprett'
]
and then in the fortify route-file:
Route::get(config('fortify.paths.create_user')
This is the first time I'm using Fortify. I was trying to customize the login flow, because I want to change the default error bag on the ValidationException
. But I noticed that the throwFailedAuthenticationException
method on the AttemptToAuthenticate
action is not being called, because the RedirectIfTwoFactorAuthenticatable
action is calling validateCredentials
, despite that I'm not using 2FA.
So the login pipeline is stopping at RedirectIfTwoFactorAuthenticatable::validateCredentials()
, and the AttemptToAuthenticate
, does not do anything, even though it's supposed to attempt to login or throw a validation exception.
AttemptToAuthenticate
:use Illuminate\Validation\ValidationException;
use Laravel\Fortify\Actions\AttemptToAuthenticate;
class CustomAttemptToAuthenticate extends AttemptToAuthenticate
{
protected function throwFailedAuthenticationException($request)
{
try {
parent::throwFailedAuthenticationException($request);
} catch (ValidationException $e) {
throw $e->errorBag('login');
}
}
}
Fortify::loginThrough(function () {
return [
config('fortify.limiters.login') ? null : EnsureLoginIsNotThrottled::class,
RedirectIfTwoFactorAuthenticatable::class,
CustomAttemptToAuthenticate::class,
PrepareAuthenticatedSession::class,
];
});
$response = $this->post('login', [
'email' => '[email protected]',
'password' => 'password',
]);
// this assertion fails
$response->assertSessionHasErrors('email', null, 'login');
$this->withoutExceptionHandling();
1 vendor/laravel/fortify/src/Actions/RedirectIfTwoFactorAuthenticatable.php:98
Illuminate\Validation\ValidationException::withMessages()
2 vendor/laravel/fortify/src/Actions/RedirectIfTwoFactorAuthenticatable.php:80
Laravel\Fortify\Actions\RedirectIfTwoFactorAuthenticatable::throwFailedAuthenticationException()
3 vendor/laravel/framework/src/Illuminate/Support/helpers.php:263
Laravel\Fortify\Actions\RedirectIfTwoFactorAuthenticatable::Laravel\Fortify\Actions\{closure}()
4 vendor/laravel/fortify/src/Actions/RedirectIfTwoFactorAuthenticatable.php:82
tap()
5 vendor/laravel/fortify/src/Actions/RedirectIfTwoFactorAuthenticatable.php:50
Laravel\Fortify\Actions\RedirectIfTwoFactorAuthenticatable::validateCredentials()
6 vendor/laravel/framework/src/Illuminate/Pipeline/Pipeline.php:167
Laravel\Fortify\Actions\RedirectIfTwoFactorAuthenticatable::handle()
7 vendor/laravel/fortify/src/Actions/EnsureLoginIsNotThrottled.php:39
Illuminate\Pipeline\Pipeline::Illuminate\Pipeline\{closure}()
8 vendor/laravel/framework/src/Illuminate/Pipeline/Pipeline.php:167
Laravel\Fortify\Actions\EnsureLoginIsNotThrottled::handle()
9 vendor/laravel/framework/src/Illuminate/Pipeline/Pipeline.php:103
Illuminate\Pipeline\Pipeline::Illuminate\Pipeline\{closure}()
10 vendor/laravel/fortify/src/Http/Controllers/AuthenticatedSessionController.php:60
Illuminate\Pipeline\Pipeline::then()
It is hard to tell whether this is intentional or not, but composer.json of this library does not contain any "illuminate/*" library constrait at all.
This might be flexible of course, but it is hard to determine, which Laravel version can match the particular version of this library.
I suggest the following line should be added to the composer.json
:
{
...
"require": {
"illuminate/support": "^7.0 || ^8.0",
...
}
}
Using laravel/UI
we can create authentication scaffold on multiple places or for multiple users like admin
, normal users
by copy-pasting the same scaffold generated by the --auth
flag.
How can we achieve the same with fortify
?
How can we use forify to authorize admin
and normal users
?
Right now you can't disable registration without also disabling login.
I'd like to disable new registrations, but want existing users to be able to continue to login.
Current config/fortify.php
Features::registration(),
Suggested config/fortify.php
Features::registration(), Features::login(),
I know this is extremely early since this just got released -- but I'm wondering if there's any plans on adding the ability to override the included actions, or for the actions to utilize other authentication providers besides eloquent
?
The current RedirectIfTwoFactorAuthenticatable
action uses a getModel()
method that is not currently inside the Stateful
guard contract:
This action (RedirectIfTwoFactorAuthenticatable
) is also responsible for validating the users credentials -- but isn't the authentication UserProvider
responsible for this?
The other concern is that the AttemptToAuthenticate
action only allows customization of the username passed into the $guard->attempt()
method, while Laravel UI allows you to customize the whole array of credentials passed in:
AttemptToAuthenticate Action in Fortify:
fortify/src/Actions/AttemptToAuthenticate.php
Lines 46 to 53 in 4be9953
AuthenticatesUsers Trait in Laravel UI:
https://github.com/laravel/ui/blob/6ed3b97576fc99049ba576de4cfab5cef4771ab3/auth-backend/AuthenticatesUsers.php#L93-L96
Please don't take these questions in any sort of negative manor -- I'm immensely grateful for the insane amount of free work that was put into this! ❤️
If there is interest in this possibility, I can work on a PR to add this extensibility and you can look at it to see if it's something you like / don't like. If it's denied, no hard feelings 👍
Related: #16, DirectoryTree/LdapRecord-Laravel#196
I'm trying to rebuild a specific authentication implementation we were using in Laravel 7 with Fortify, however, there doesn't seem to be a way to modify the authorisation error message returned to the user within the Fortify::authenticateUsing()
method.
For example:
$user = User::where('username', $request->username)->first();
if ($user && in_array($user->status_id, [1,2,3])) {
if (Hash::check($request->password, $user->password)) {
return $user;
}
}
else {
// custom error message here -- doesn't work
$request->session()->flash('errors', 'Account does not exist or is inactive. Check your username.');
}
I've traced this back to the Laravel/Fortify/Actions/AttemptToAuthenticate
class and the throwFailedAuthenicationException
function which allows you to customise the message via the resources\lang\en\auth.php
file, but there doesn't seem to be a way of modifying the logic of which message should be returned anywhere?
If I'm wrong, could the documentation be updated to show how?
TypeError
Argument 1 passed to Symfony\Component\HttpFoundation\Response::setContent() must be of the type string or null, object given, called in laravel\framework\src\Illuminate\Http\Response.php on line 65
I did some debugging, and basically when you return an Inertia response in a common controller Illuminate\Routing\Router::toResponse()
receives Inertia\Response object where then it calls its own toResponse()
to return Illuminate\Http\Response
and all is good.
But, using:
Fortify::loginView(function () {
return inertia('Auth/Login');
});
it fails to build the response because of the SimpleViewResponse
and simply returns and Inertia\Response
object instead of a string, hence the error above.
Configure Inertia, make a Vue component resources/js/Pages/Auth/Login.vue
and in FortifyServiceProvider::boot()
paste:
Fortify::loginView(function () {
return inertia('Auth/Login');
});
When I disable all the features within the fortify.php
configuration file
'features' => [
//
],
the default Fortify routes are disabled, but the password confirmation route
is still enabled. Is this a bug, or is it intentionally defined that way?
laraven new app
composer require laravel/fortify
php artisan vendor:publish --provider="Laravel\Fortify\FortifyServiceProvider"
config/fortify.php
and remove all keys within features
arrayphp artisan route:list
I think there should be a conditional that groups these routes in the routes.php
file.
Lines 95 to 104 in 77bd46a
When performing a password reset, users enter an email address and the request gets posted to /forgot-password. If someone enters an email that doesn't exist, Fortify returns an error. If the email does exist, it returns a status message that the email has been sent.
This exposes whether or not an account exists on the system which provides an attacker with information. They can now target that user/email address directly with phishing or social engineering attempts.
Best practice would be to skip returning any errors and to always notify users that "An email has been sent to [email protected] with password reset instructions."
After succesfully update of profile information the status is set to 'profile-information-updated'
This string is not even possible to translate.
In my case I have in my main layout something like:
@if (session('status'))
{{ session('status') }}
@endif
And can't even translate that string because the status can be already translated or have different namespace of translation.
Can we add a translated string there? Override that controller for just change that string seem not worth.
In Jetstream you seem just return a generic "Save" message from Livewire, but non-livewire and non-ajax submission need a way to display message from server.
Same thing for update password and two factors. Return 'password-updated' and 'two-factor-authentication-enabled'
Thanks
Will Laravel Fortify gets a documentation website in the near future?
This will be very convenient to write our own implementations of an authentication system.
During the implementation of the password confirmation functionality, I noticed the request is not validated beforehand to see if the required password is actually submitted. Resulting in a server error:
TypeError
Argument 3 passed to Laravel\Fortify\Actions\ConfirmPassword::__invoke() must be of the type string, null given, called in /var/www/projects/laravel/vendor/laravel/fortify/src/Http/Controllers/ConfirmablePasswordController.php on line 53
If you submit an empty password field, the validation should just fail, as if you submitted an invalid password. It should not actually result in a server error.
Recently i see the PR #70 to get a better way to translate those strings and I really appreciate that, but what if a want to custom that messages? Maybe a way to achieve that is with lang files or a possibility to change it in ValidationRules action published.
Upon installing Laravel/Fortify on a clean install, you receive errors on the login and register endpoints.
Errors, respectively;
Target [Laravel\Fortify\Contracts\LoginViewResponse] is not instantiable.
and
Target [Laravel\Fortify\Contracts\RegisterViewResponse] is not instantiable.
laravel new project
cd project
composer require laravel/fortify
php artisan vendor:publish --provider="Laravel\Fortify\FortifyServiceProvider"
php artisan migrate
1.4.1
8.0
7.4.5
MySQL 8.0.19
When a user updates their profile information, the UpdateUserProfileInformation
action checks to see if the new email in the request equals the user's existing email on record. Regardless of rather it does or not, the action sets the user's email_verified_at
property to null
. The expected behaviour would be to only nullify email_verified_at
if the new email in the request does not equal the user's existing email on record.
/user/profile-information
with any email
and name
.I'm unsure if this is a Fortify issue or a Laravel issue or even me not using middleware correct, however in my config/fortify.php I have 'home' => RouteServiceProvider::HOME,
and in my RouteServiceProvider
I have public const HOME = '/home';
yet when I try logging in I get sent to my /not-subscribed route. If I comment out my / route, I get sent to /home. If I put Route::view('/home', 'home');
above the / route I get sent to /home.
My route looks like the following, and yes I do want every route to have an authenticated user.
Route::middleware(['auth'])->group(
function () {
Route::middleware([MyCustomMiddleware::class])->group(
function () {
Route::get(
'/',
function () {
return view('welcome');
}
);
}
);
Route::view('/home', 'home');
Route::get('/not-subscribed', NotSubscribedIndexAction::class)->name('auth.notsubscribed');
}
);
As you might have seen, my / route does have a middleware on it, which is why I get redirected to /not-subscribed upon login when having my routes in that order.
I also did a test where I strictly had the following and it does work correctly, so again, I'm unsure if this is a Fortify issue, Laravel issue, or me not using middleware correctly.
Route::get(
'/',
function () {
return view('welcome');
}
);
Route::view('/home', 'home');
Right now if we want to change the login view we can do
Fortify::loginView('different-view')
But that only allows you to change it to a different view name, behind the scenes it's just rendering a singleton binding for LoginViewResponse
.
You'd think no stress, we can override that binding for example for an Inertia view
$this->app->singleton(LoginViewResponse::class, () => Inertia::render('Login'));
But unfortunately this doesn't work due to the typehint on the controller method
So instead the next best option is resolving an anonymous class that proxies the inertia response
$this->app->singleton(LoginViewResponse::class, function () {
return new class implements LoginViewResponse
{
public function toResponse($request)
{
return Inertia::render('Login')->toResponse($request);
}
};
});
This works perfectly but isn't exactly friendly.
My suggestion is that we loosen the typehint to just Response
and allow Fortify::loginView
to take a closure which would be used as the binding, meaning it would be as simple as
Fortify::loginView(() => Inertia::render('Login'));
Of course we'd do the same for the other view methods. I'm happy to PR this if the idea gets approved.
Option to build the Auth Migrations and link with UUID instead of Standard incrementing Primary key, this for all migrations
Illuminate\Contracts\Container\BindingResolutionException
Target [Laravel\Fortify\Contracts\CreatesNewUsers] is not instantiable.
Windows environment
laravel new jetstream --jet --dev
select livewire and teams
php artisan migrate
php artisan serve
Register a new user and click "Register"
Undefined variable: request in reset-password.blade.php
when I override view forgot-password
Clean installation Laravel Framework 8.4.0 without any auth scaffolding.
Db migration and seed - it's ok!
Then:
composer require laravel/fortify
and php artisan vendor:publish...
php artisan migrate
It's ok!
Created in FortifyServiceProvider
in boot()
:
Fortify::requestPasswordResetLinkView(function () {
return view('admin.auth.forgot-password');
});
Fortify::resetPasswordView(function () {
return view('admin.auth.reset-password');
});
And created views in view/admin/auth
folder:
forgot-password.blade.php
<form method="POST" action="/forgot-password">
@csrf
<input id="email" type="email" name="email" value="{{ old('email') }}" required>
<button type="submit">
{{ __('Send Password Reset Link') }}
</button>
</form>
reset-password.blade.php
<form method="POST" action="/reset-password">
@csrf
<input type="hidden" name="token" value="{{ $request->route('token') }}">
</form>
Then in browser /forgot-password
Send Password Reset Link
From mail go to link /reset-password/543c9a...hash?email=admin%40example.com
I get
ErrorException
Undefined variable: request (View: ...\resources\views\admin\auth\reset-password.blade.php)`
It also doesn't work if I am using Jetstream
and want to override the view forgot-password
in JetstreamServiceProvider
in boot()
and sets any folder.
Even if I only specify this, I will not change anything else from a clean install (liveware).
Fortify::requestPasswordResetLinkView(static function () {
return view('auth.forgot-password');
});
I localized my projects by prefix URL with a locale symbol. How I can do it with fortify to be like 'en/login', 'en/register', ... etc?
A declarative, efficient, and flexible JavaScript library for building user interfaces.
🖖 Vue.js is a progressive, incrementally-adoptable JavaScript framework for building UI on the web.
TypeScript is a superset of JavaScript that compiles to clean JavaScript output.
An Open Source Machine Learning Framework for Everyone
The Web framework for perfectionists with deadlines.
A PHP framework for web artisans
Bring data to life with SVG, Canvas and HTML. 📊📈🎉
JavaScript (JS) is a lightweight interpreted programming language with first-class functions.
Some thing interesting about web. New door for the world.
A server is a program made to process requests and deliver data to clients.
Machine learning is a way of modeling and interpreting data that allows a piece of software to respond intelligently.
Some thing interesting about visualization, use data art
Some thing interesting about game, make everyone happy.
We are working to build community through open source technology. NB: members must have two-factor auth.
Open source projects and samples from Microsoft.
Google ❤️ Open Source for everyone.
Alibaba Open Source for everyone
Data-Driven Documents codes.
China tencent open source team.