#2114 landed on v2/main, which is the PR this one follows up. Two
conflicts, one of them silent.
The marked conflict was cosmetic: keep v2/main's comment on the
`provider.scope` read, which now notes the getter filters (#2068).
The real one git merged cleanly and would have left dead: #2114's
if (this.oauthConfig.requestRefreshToken === false && requestedScope) {
this.pendingAuthorizationScope = requestedScope;
}
sat directly above this branch's unconditional
`recordAuthorizationRequestScope`, which overwrites the same field a few
lines later. Dropping that gate is what #2117 is for, so it is removed
rather than kept as a no-op.
The two changes compose: the SDK adds `offline_access` only when
`clientMetadata.grant_types` includes `refresh_token`, which the provider
drops while the opt-out is on -- so reading the authorize URL yields the
filtered scope there, exactly what #2114's gated branch persisted.
#2114's third case pinned the gate and inverts here, as its issue
predicted. It now asserts the request is persisted even with the grant
on; that records no new claim, since the request equals what storage
already held.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_013hzwzS8UvBsr4yZm7o7sev
Signed-off-by: cliffhall <cliff@futurescale.com>
71b960e078