Cleaned up auth user types for easier debugging

[jwngr]

Description

I’ve now seen several reports of people getting confused by the fact that when you log UserRecord, you get a bunch of properties which are named <something>Internal. People think those are what they should use instead of just <something>. This change has no functional difference other than cleaning up which these properties display when doing a console.log().

Code sample

Previous output:

UserRecord {
  uidInternal: '0aiHf8cXAhumgYbHqE05',
  emailInternal: '[email protected]',
  emailVerifiedInternal: false,
  displayNameInternal: 'Random User 0aiHf8cXAhumgYbHqE05',
  photoURLInternal: 'http://www.example.com/0aiHf8cXAhumgYbHqE05/photo.png',
  disabledInternal: false,
  metadataInternal: 
   UserMetadata {
     createdAtInternal: 2017-02-02T05:25:35.000Z,
     lastSignedInAtInternal: null },
  providerDataInternal: 
   [ UserInfo {
       uidInternal: '[email protected]',
       displayNameInternal: 'Random User 0aiHf8cXAhumgYbHqE05',
       emailInternal: '[email protected]',
       photoURLInternal: 'http://www.example.com/0aiHf8cXAhumgYbHqE05/photo.png',
       providerIdInternal: 'password' } ] }

New output:

UserRecord {
  uid: '0aiHf8cXAhumgYbHqE05',
  email: '[email protected]',
  emailVerified: false,
  displayName: 'Random User 0aiHf8cXAhumgYbHqE05',
  photoURL: 'http://www.example.com/0aiHf8cXAhumgYbHqE05/photo.png',
  disabled: false,
  metadata: UserMetadata { createdAt: 2017-02-02T05:25:35.000Z, lastSignedInAt: null },
  providerData: 
   [ UserInfo {
       uid: '[email protected]',
       displayName: 'Random User 0aiHf8cXAhumgYbHqE05',
       email: '[email protected]',
       photoURL: 'http://www.example.com/0aiHf8cXAhumgYbHqE05/photo.png',
       providerId: 'password' } ] }

[jwngr]

Note that readonly here is a compilation time check only. I think it's useful to have to make sure we don't accidentally set the property in our own codebase, but it does not enforce read-only behavior for end-users. That is why I needed to explicitly use Object.defineProperty() below to enforce the read-only behavior.

[bojeil-google]

Maybe this should be renamed to something like addReadonlyGetter or something of the like since a getter does not necessarily imply the property does not have a setter?

Also would be helpful to a test for this, where you add a readonly property on an object, try to change its value and then check the old value is still there.

[jwngr]

Done.

[jwngr]

Back to you @bojeil-google! Also, in the future, please use the GitHub UI to assign the PR back to me after you are done with your review. That way, you'll get a notification when I've assigned the PR back to you once I'm done, instead of me having to send you a comment like this.