Support Async SQLite Clients with DrizzleORM

[AsyncBanana]

Description 📓

Currently, Auth.js' DrizzleORM SQLite adapter does not support Async SQLite clients like the Turso/LibSQL client or the Cloudflare D1 client. This is due to the queries returning promises, which are not properly dealt with

I would be happy to submit a PR to fix this, as most of the code would be almost exactly the same as with the synchronous SQLite client. However, I am not sure how to go about implementing it. Would it make the most sense to create an entirely separate "subadapter" like the ones for MySQL and Postgres, or is there a better way to implement this?

How to reproduce ☕️

Simply create an Auth.js project with the Drizzle adapter and use an asynchronous SQLite driver (in my case, the Turso/LibSQL driver). Try logging in, logging out, and logging in again. The second time you should see Auth.js trying to create a duplicate OAuth account because the query in getUserByAccount returns a promise, which is not resolved.

Contributing 🙌🏽

Yes, I am willing to help implement this feature in a PR

[techmunk]

Seems like techmunk@cb6b2a8 is all that would be needed.

I don't really have time to go back and forth on a PR, so feel free to take this and make one. It seems to work for me and the tests pass... Not sure if there's any other issues the nextauth team would flag before merging.

[AsyncBanana]

Simply making the sqlite adapter async is an option I explored. However, I do not think it is a great idea due to the performance cost for synchronous sqlite drivers (promises do have an overhead).

[techmunk]

They can have a cost of course, however in this case I don't think it would change much as:

1. The callstack into the adapter is already Promise driven.
2. If an awaited promise is actually synchronous, then it's resolved in that same iteration of the event loop anyway, so the cost is really only the extra function wrapping that async/await/Promise driven code adds.

In any event, not really my call to make. Hopefully someone from the team chimes in and answers.

For now I'm just going ahead with a "patch-package" patch. Progress never stops right? Or something like that. :)

[AsyncBanana]

Also, I realized most functions could be left alone anyways due to them not dealing with the promise values and therefore the caller handling the promise in the response, so most functions wouldn't carry any cost.

[gediminastub]

Any news on this? Thanks!

[jasongitmail]

Same, blocked on this

[adidoes]

bump, blocked by this too

[emekaorji]

Bump, any updates here? Thanks.