fix: make withPageAuthRequired generic to support PageProps/LayoutProps types

[sleitor]

Closes #2440

Problem

withPageAuthRequired does not accept Next.js PageProps or LayoutProps types because AppRouterPageRoute expects AppRouterPageRouteOpts with loosely-typed params?: Promise<Record<string, string | string[]>>. Next.js typed routes produce narrower types (e.g. Promise<{ id: string }>) that are incompatible.

// TS error: Types of parameters 'props' and 'obj' are incompatible
export default auth0.withPageAuthRequired(
  async function Page(props: PageProps<"/customers/[id]/details">) {
    const { id } = await props.params;
    return <div>{id}</div>;
  }
);

Fix

Make AppRouterPageRoute, WithPageAuthRequiredAppRouter, and appRouteHandlerFactory generic over the props type P extends AppRouterPageRouteOpts. TypeScript infers P from the handler function, so the return type preserves the exact props type.

// Now works — props.params correctly typed as Promise<{ id: string }>
export default auth0.withPageAuthRequired(
  async function Page(props: PageProps<"/customers/[id]/details">) {
    const { id } = await props.params;
    return <div>{id}</div>;
  }
);

Also works with LayoutProps:

export default auth0.withPageAuthRequired(
  async function Layout(props: LayoutProps<"/dashboard">) {
    return <div>{props.children}</div>;
  }
);

Changes

• src/server/helpers/with-page-auth-required.ts:
  • AppRouterPageRoute<P> — generic with default AppRouterPageRouteOpts
  • WithPageAuthRequiredAppRouter — generic, infers P from handler
  • appRouteHandlerFactory — propagates generic through implementation

Testing

• All 819 existing tests pass
• TypeScript compiles without errors
• Backward compatible: existing code without generics continues to work (default type parameter)

[Piyush-85]

Hi @sleitor, had a look at the changes and looks good. There were a few additional use cases which I wanted to cover and have raised a follow up pr for those. PR 2550.
Will do a round of final testing and release it shortly.

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 90.50%. Comparing base (7480201) to head (517c7e6).
⚠️ Report is 4 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #2529   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   90.50%   90.50%           
=======================================
  Files          52       52           
  Lines        6632     6634    +2     
  Branches     1380     1380           
=======================================
+ Hits         6002     6004    +2     
  Misses        619      619           
  Partials       11       11           

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

[Piyush-85]

Hi @sleitor, observed this pr a few failing checks. Could you please have a look into those !!

[sleitor]

@Piyush-85 Hi! I checked the CI status — the checks show as "action_required" which is standard for external PRs requiring maintainer CI approval to run workflows, not actual test failures. The local lint check passes (tsc --noEmit + ESLint). If you can approve the CI run, I believe all checks should pass. Let me know if you see any other specific failures I should address!