auth0-spa-js VS universal-router

Your message feels disingenuous and not in good-faith.

Auth0 clearly advises against the localStorage option which is most similar to Stytch's:

> _Important:_ This feature will allow the caching of data _such as ID and access tokens_ to be stored in local storage. Exercising this option changes the security characteristics of your application and _should not be used lightly._ Extra care should be taken to mitigate against XSS attacks and minimize the risk of tokens being stolen from local storage.

This is from the readme of the github you linked:

https://github.com/auth0/auth0-spa-js/tree/0de9c6bf61d37fc21...

And since their other client-only solutions have major UX challenges (as you highlight), I expect most Auth0 users have landed on the secure option.

This is very different from Stytch - which as far as I can tell - doesn't disclose or acknowledge the risk, and instead willingly puts developers at increased risk. Throughout this thread, you've been dismissive of the risk despite security organizations clearly indicating that HttpOnly is best-practice.

You've found a legitimate comparison in Firebase, but for me, you've taken several steps too far trying to compare to Auth0.

Auth0 provides the auth0-spa-js package which offers two ways to authenticate users:

Therefore, I have transformed the library [@auth0/auth0-spa-js](https://github.com/auth0/auth0-spa-js), which is another official Auth0 client library, to have an authentication hook and methods that can be accessible outside the components.

auth0-spa-js must run on a secure origin. See https://github.com/auth0/auth0-spa-js/blob/master/FAQ.md#why-do-i-get-auth0-spa-js-must-run-on-a-secure-origin for more information. 32 | it("renders a login button", () => { 33 | > 34 | const { getByText } = render( | ^ 35 | 36 | 37 |

A quick showcase of UniversalRouter (1.6kB zip) as an "easy" alternative to React Router.