test(client): fully cover client module

[ubbe-xyz]

Reasoning 💡

Final tests for <SessionProvider /> and useSession() 🏋🏻‍♀️

Checklist 🧢

• Documentation
• Tests
• Ready to be merged

Affected issues 🎟

None

[vercel]

This pull request is being automatically deployed with Vercel (learn more).
To see the status of your deployment, click below or on the icon next to each commit.

🔍 Inspect: https://vercel.com/nextauthjs/next-auth/CJmTp4yDwjdj7KQTqzL3xFmSumvD
✅ Preview: https://next-auth-git-test-client-tests-nextauthjs.vercel.app

[ndom91]

LGTM 👍

I didn't follow the thread 100%, on mobile currently, but I saw your TODO, just curious why can't we clean __NEXTAUTH between test runs?

[balazsorban44]

Small comment I noticed that dist/client/__tests__ are also getting in the package published to npm. we should have a look.

don't see why those are generated from the .ts test files at all, they are just tests, if not possible to not generate them, should we just delete after a test run?

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

Merging #2295 (5f2e4ac) into next (eb8ba69) will increase coverage by 2.49%.
The diff coverage is 100.00%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             next    #2295      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   11.48%   13.97%   +2.49%     
==========================================
  Files          85       85              
  Lines        1324     1324              
  Branches      379      378       -1     
==========================================
+ Hits          152      185      +33     
+ Misses        975      950      -25     
+ Partials      197      189       -8     

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
src/client/react.js	95.54% <100.00%> (+10.19%)	⬆️
src/lib/logger.js	65.78% <0.00%> (+44.73%)	⬆️

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update eb8ba69...5f2e4ac. Read the comment docs.

[balazsorban44]

@theobr has pointed out to me that staleTime might actually be unnecessary and have a huge overlap with the refetchInterval option. The only difference is that the former executes a session re-fetch once, while the latter does that periodically. It might make sense to remove staleTime altogether.

@lluia After reading the docs, would you agree?:
https://next-auth-git-next-nextauthjs.vercel.app/getting-started/client#stale-time
https://next-auth-git-next-nextauthjs.vercel.app/getting-started/client#refetch-interval

[ubbe-xyz]

@balazsorban44 thinking twice, you're right, refetchInterval comes with an implicit staleTime 😆

I believe most clients are looking for the behaviour offered by refetchInterval, so I think we could remove staleTime and just improve the docs of refetchInterval 👍🏽