Nuxt•3w ago

How can I avoid 401 error with useFetch and http basic auth, when SWR enabled

Hello, I have the newest Nuxt (v3.14.159) and nuxt-security (v2.0.0) packages . When I call useFetch to a server route, in a page, where SWR is enabled, I get a 401 because of the http basic auth. When I manually include the headers in the request it works, but what is the Nuxt/nuxt-security intended way to do this? Thank you and kind regards

11 Replies

kapa.ai•3w ago

Hi @lionel. I'm kapa.ai, your friendly support bot. I will try to answer your question by searching through the knowledge base. :wave: ---------------------- To address your question about avoiding 401 errors with useFetch and HTTP Basic Auth when SWR (Stale-While-Revalidate) is enabled in Nuxt 3, there are a few approaches you can consider: 1. Custom $fetch instance: You can create a custom $fetch instance using a Nuxt plugin that automatically includes the authentication headers for all requests. This approach is recommended in the Nuxt documentation:

export default defineNuxtPlugin((nuxtApp) => {
  const api = $fetch.create({
    onRequest({ options }) {
      options.headers = options.headers || {}
      options.headers.Authorization = `Basic ${btoa('username:password')}`
    }
  })

  return {
    provide: {
      api
    }
  }
})

export default defineNuxtPlugin((nuxtApp) => {
  const api = $fetch.create({
    onRequest({ options }) {
      options.headers = options.headers || {}
      options.headers.Authorization = `Basic ${btoa('username:password')}`
    }
  })

  return {
    provide: {
      api
    }
  }
})

Then you can use this custom instance in your components:

const { $api } = useNuxtApp()
const { data } = await useAsyncData('data', () => $api('/your-endpoint'))

const { $api } = useNuxtApp()
const { data } = await useAsyncData('data', () => $api('/your-endpoint'))

Nuxt Docs: Custom $fetch (https://nuxt.com/docs/guide/recipes/custom-usefetch#custom-fetch) 2. Interceptors: Alternatively, you can use interceptors with useFetch to add the authentication headers:

const { data, status, error, refresh, clear } = await useFetch('/api/endpoint', {
  onRequest({ request, options }) {
    options.headers = options.headers || {}
    options.headers.Authorization = `Basic ${btoa('username:password')}`
  }
})

const { data, status, error, refresh, clear } = await useFetch('/api/endpoint', {
  onRequest({ request, options }) {
    options.headers = options.headers || {}
    options.headers.Authorization = `Basic ${btoa('username:password')}`
  }
})

Nuxt Docs: useFetch (https://nuxt.com/docs/api/composables/use-fetch#usefetch) 3. Custom useFetch wrapper: You can also create a custom wrapper around useFetch that automatically includes the authentication headers:

function useCustomFetch<T>(url: string, options: UseFetchOptions<T> = {}) {
  const defaults: UseFetchOptions<T> = {
    onRequest({ options }) {
      options.headers = options.headers || {}
      options.headers.Authorization = `Basic ${btoa('username:password')}`
    }
  }
const params = defu(options, defaults)

  return useFetch(url, params)
}

function useCustomFetch<T>(url: string, options: UseFetchOptions<T> = {}) {
  const defaults: UseFetchOptions<T> = {
    onRequest({ options }) {
      options.headers = options.headers || {}
      options.headers.Authorization = `Basic ${btoa('username:password')}`
    }
  }
const params = defu(options, defaults)

  return useFetch(url, params)
}

Then use this custom wrapper in your components:

const { data } = await useCustomFetch('/your-endpoint')

const { data } = await useCustomFetch('/your-endpoint')

Nuxt Docs: Custom useFetch (https://nuxt.com/docs/guide/recipes/custom-usefetch#custom-usefetch) These approaches should help you avoid 401 errors when using useFetch with HTTP Basic Auth, even when SWR is enabled. Remember to replace 'username:password' with your actual credentials. As for the nuxt-security package, it primarily focuses on adding security headers and doesn't directly handle authentication for API requests. The methods described above are more aligned with Nuxt's intended way of handling authentication in API requests. ---------------------- Note: you can ask me a follow up question by @ mentioning me again :speech_balloon: ----------------------

kapa.ai•3w ago

<@1171391755455840281> Kapa.ai is still learning and improving, please let me know how I did by reacting below.

lionelOP•3w ago

@kapa.ai isnt there a more standard way to do this, without a custom useFetch wrapper or manually adding the headers to the request? This is taken care of by the nuxt-security module, it just does not work with swr

kapa.ai•3w ago

Let me check the knowledge base for you again. One moment! :books: ---------------------- You're right to question if there's a more standard way to handle this, especially since you're using the nuxt-security module. I apologize for not addressing that aspect in my previous response. Let's look at this from the perspective of nuxt-security and its interaction with SWR (Stale-While-Revalidate). The nuxt-security module indeed should handle HTTP Basic Auth automatically, including for API routes. However, you've identified a potential issue with its interaction with SWR. This seems to be a specific case that might not be working as expected. Unfortunately, I don't have enough information in the provided knowledge sources to give a definitive answer about how nuxt-security should handle this situation with SWR enabled. The interaction between nuxt-security's HTTP Basic Auth and SWR isn't explicitly covered in the available documentation. Given this limitation, here are a couple of suggestions: 1. Check the nuxt-security documentation and issues: It would be worth checking the latest nuxt-security documentation and their GitHub issues to see if this specific interaction with SWR is addressed. There might be a configuration option or a known workaround. 2. Report an issue: If you can't find any information about this interaction, it might be worth reporting this as an issue to the nuxt-security repository. This could be a bug or an edge case that the maintainers haven't considered. 3. Temporary workaround: While not ideal, you might need to use one of the methods I mentioned earlier as a temporary solution until this is addressed in nuxt-security. I apologize that I can't provide a more definitive "standard" way to handle this specific situation. It seems to be a case where the expected behavior (nuxt-security handling auth automatically) is not working as intended when combined with SWR. This might require attention from the nuxt-security maintainers to ensure seamless integration with all Nuxt features, including SWR. Hmm, I do not have enough information to answer your question about a standard way to handle this specific interaction between nuxt-security, HTTP Basic Auth, and SWR without resorting to custom wrappers or manual header additions. This seems to be a specific case that might need further investigation or clarification from the nuxt-security module maintainers. ---------------------- Note: you can ask me a follow up question by @ mentioning me again :speech_balloon: ----------------------

kapa.ai•3w ago

<@1171391755455840281> Kapa.ai is still learning and improving, please let me know how I did by reacting below.

lionelOP•3w ago

@kapa.ai can I use field level validations with useField in vee validate 4, while also using form level validtion with useForm?

kapa.ai•3w ago

Let me check the knowledge base for you again. One moment! :books: ---------------------- I apologize, but I don't have enough specific information in the provided knowledge sources to give you a definitive answer about using field-level validations with useField in Vee-Validate 4 while also using form-level validation with useForm. The knowledge sources don't contain detailed information about Vee-Validate 4's API or its integration with Nuxt. However, I can provide some general information based on the available sources: 1. Nuxt UI provides a Form component that supports various validation libraries, including Vee-Validate. The Form component in Nuxt UI uses a validate prop for custom validation logic Nuxt UI Form Component (https://ui.nuxt.com/components/form#custom-validation). 2. There's an example of integrating Vuelidate (another validation library) with Nuxt UI's Form component, which suggests that it's possible to use custom validation approaches with Nuxt UI Nuxt UI Form Component (https://ui.nuxt.com/components/form#custom-validation). 3. The Nuxt UI documentation mentions that no validation library is included by default, so you need to install the one you need Nuxt UI Form Component (https://ui.nuxt.com/components/form). To get a definitive answer about using field-level validations with useField in Vee-Validate 4 while also using form-level validation with useForm in a Nuxt context, you might want to check the official Vee-Validate documentation or their GitHub repository for the most up-to-date information on this specific use case. ---------------------- Note: you can ask me a follow up question by @ mentioning me again :speech_balloon: ----------------------

kapa.ai•3w ago

<@1171391755455840281> Kapa.ai is still learning and improving, please let me know how I did by reacting below.

lionelOP•2w ago

@kapa.ai is it best practice to deploy nuxt 3 with docker to a vps or without docker

kapa.ai•2w ago

Let me check the knowledge base for you again. One moment! :books: ---------------------- Based on the knowledge sources provided, I can offer some insights on deploying Nuxt 3 to a VPS (Virtual Private Server) with or without Docker. Both approaches - using Docker and deploying directly without Docker - are valid for deploying Nuxt 3 to a VPS. The choice depends on your specific requirements and preferences. Let's look at some considerations: 1. Deploying with Docker: Docker provides several advantages for deploying Nuxt 3 applications: - Consistency: Docker ensures that your application runs in the same environment across different stages of development and production. - Isolation: Your application and its dependencies are isolated from the host system. - Scalability: Docker makes it easier to scale your application horizontally. - Easier updates: You can update your application by simply replacing the Docker image. There are examples of successfully deploying Nuxt 3 applications using Docker. For instance, this Stack Overflow post (https://stackoverflow.com/questions/77037790) shows a Dockerfile for a Nuxt 3 application:

FROM node:18.17.1-bullseye as build-stage

WORKDIR /app
COPY . .
RUN yarn install
RUN yarn build

FROM node:18.17.1-bullseye as production-stage
RUN mkdir /app
COPY --from=build-stage /app/.output /app/.output

ENTRYPOINT ["node", ".output/server/index.mjs"]

FROM node:18.17.1-bullseye as build-stage

WORKDIR /app
COPY . .
RUN yarn install
RUN yarn build

FROM node:18.17.1-bullseye as production-stage
RUN mkdir /app
COPY --from=build-stage /app/.output /app/.output

ENTRYPOINT ["node", ".output/server/index.mjs"]

2. Deploying without Docker: Deploying Nuxt 3 directly on a VPS is also a valid approach. The Nuxt documentation (https://nuxt.com/docs/getting-started/deployment) provides instructions for deploying to a Node.js server:

node .output/server/index.mjs

node .output/server/index.mjs

This approach is simpler and requires less setup, but you'll need to manage the Node.js environment and dependencies directly on your VPS. Best Practice: The "best" practice depends on your specific needs: 1. If you value consistency across environments, easier scalability, and isolation, Docker might be the better choice. 2. If you prefer a simpler setup and have experience managing Node.js environments directly, deploying without Docker could be more suitable. 3. Consider your team's expertise: If your team is more familiar with Docker, it might be easier to use Docker for deployment. 4. Think about your scaling needs: If you anticipate needing to scale your application quickly, Docker can make this process easier. 5. Consider your VPS resources: Docker adds a small overhead, so if your VPS has limited resources, deploying without Docker might be more efficient. In conclusion, both approaches are valid, and the best practice depends on your specific requirements, team expertise, and infrastructure setup. If you're unsure, you might want to experiment with both approaches to see which works better for your particular use case. ---------------------- Note: you can ask me a follow up question by @ mentioning me again :speech_balloon: ----------------------

kapa.ai•2w ago

<@1171391755455840281> Kapa.ai is still learning and improving, please let me know how I did by reacting below.

Gaming

Programming

How can I avoid 401 error with useFetch and http basic auth, when SWR enabled