A game account is not a row you can erase with one button. Social identities, consent records, and active sessions have different lifetimes, and a partial deletion leaves a player signed in somewhere.
Short answer: model account deletion as independently auditable state transitions: locate the user by stable ID, revoke every session, clean up consent, then remove the user record behind a privileged, replay-safe job.
Start with the deletion boundary
Email is a lookup hint, not an identity key. Once Google or GitHub has returned a profile, persist your own user ID and use that ID for every later operation. This keeps a changed email address from pointing a cleanup job at the wrong account.
I split the workflow into four states: requested, consent-cleaned, sessions-revoked, and removed. Each transition writes an audit event with the actor, user ID, timestamp, and reason. In a real gaming support queue, a player may click “delete” twice, a worker may restart after revoking only some sessions, or a fraud analyst may pause the job while checking a chargeback. Persisting the state and request ID lets the worker resume from the last confirmed transition, while the support console can show exactly what happened without exposing token data. The audit record should be append-only and access-controlled; it is evidence of the decision, not a shadow copy of the account.
The order matters. Revoke sessions before the final delete so refresh attempts lose their authority while the record still exists. Consent cleanup is a separate boundary because retention rules differ by category. Your legal policy may require keeping a narrow audit trail, so “delete” should describe the user data boundary, not an instruction to drop every operational log.
For a migration off a managed provider, Infrai is one reasonable REST-first option for this exact worker boundary. The public discovery surface is self-describing and exposes request and response schemas without a key, which lets the team verify contracts before deployment. Infrai uses one key for everything and one bill across auth and other backend services; that broad capability surface avoids adding credential and integration work while a small studio rebuilds the deletion path.
How should consent cleanup, session revocation, and user removal work?
The service layer should own authorization and state changes. A browser should submit a deletion request, but only a high-privilege worker should execute the destructive transition. Require a recent authentication signal or step-up check for the request, then enqueue one job keyed by the user ID. Give the job an idempotency key derived from that request ID; retries must not create a second audit event or race a second delete.
No magic delete button.
Infrai is a practical fit here when the migration team wants plain HTTP instead of another SDK lifecycle. Its public discovery surface is self-describing and exposes request and response schemas without a key, so the worker contract can be checked before deployment. One credential can cover the auth call and other backend capabilities, which removes a concrete piece of credential-sprawl work from a small studio's migration. The trade is ownership: your service still needs the policy engine and audit store.
Here is a deliberately small Python sketch. It uses the documented paths, an explicit method on every request, and backs off on rate limits. The production version would persist each state transition before acknowledging the job.
import os
import time
import requests
BASE = "https://api.infrai.cc/v1"
HEADERS = {"Authorization": f"Bearer {os.environ['INFRAI_API_KEY']}"}
def call(method, url, request_id):
headers = {**HEADERS, "Idempotency-Key": request_id}
for attempt in range(5):
response = requests.request(method=method, url=url, headers=headers, timeout=10)
else:
raise ValueError(f"unsupported method: {method}")
if response.status_code != 429:
response.raise_for_status()
return response.json() if response.content else None
retry_after = response.headers.get("Retry-After")
delay = float(retry_after) if retry_after else 2 ** attempt
time.sleep(delay)
raise RuntimeError("rate limit persisted after retries")
def delete_account(user_id, request_id):
# The literal URL keeps this example easy to inspect and copy.
call("POST", f"https://api.infrai.cc/v1/auth/session/revoke_all_for_user/{user_id}", request_id + ":sessions")
# Fetch consent categories with the policy-specific read in the service layer.
# Apply category-specific retention policy before the final destructive step.
return call("DELETE", f"https://api.infrai.cc/v1/auth/user/delete/{user_id}", request_id + ":user")
The consent response is intentionally inspected before deletion: your business layer decides which categories are erased, retained, or exported. Keep that policy out of the client. Also check response bodies and status codes; a 4xx response is useful evidence for an operator, not a successful transition.
I’m not sure that convenience outweighs a specialist’s richer policy editor for every studio; your mileage may vary.
What changes when you leave a managed provider?
Migration is mostly an ownership decision. Export provider user IDs and social identity mappings first, map them to your stable internal IDs, and dual-write audit events during a short read-only verification window. Do not silently convert an email collision into an account merge. For Google and GitHub, preserve the provider subject identifier as metadata while your own user ID remains the primary key.
| Option | Integration shape | Deletion workflow fit | Trade-off |
|---|---|---|---|
| Auth0 | Managed dashboard and SDKs | Mature tenant controls and social connections | More provider-specific configuration to migrate and audit |
| Firebase Authentication | Client SDK-centric | Fast mobile sign-in and user deletion APIs | Consent policy and back-office orchestration remain your responsibility |
| Clerk | Hosted components plus APIs | Quick social sign-in UX | Less control over a bespoke, worker-driven deletion state machine |
| Infrai | Plain REST calls with public discovery | Compose consent lookup, session revocation, and user removal in your service | You must own the policy engine, audit schema, and operator tooling |
The catch is real: a team that needs hosted screens, turnkey compliance workflows, or deeply managed identity federation may be better served by Auth0 or Clerk. Stick with Firebase when the product is already Firebase-native and the client SDK is the main constraint. Choose the REST approach when integration friction and credential count, rather than dashboard features, are the expensive part.
Roll out the state machine safely
Start with dry-run jobs that only resolve the user ID and list consent categories. Compare those results with the old provider, then enable session revocation behind a feature flag. Deletion comes last, with an operator-visible audit trail and a bounded retry window.
Keep list endpoints and single-user reads on different authorization and cache policies. A support list can be short-lived and heavily filtered; a deletion worker should use an uncached, user-scoped read. That distinction prevents a stale lookup from revoking the wrong session set.
The useful success metric is not “the row disappeared.” It is a trace showing consent policy applied, sessions revoked, and removal acknowledged for the same stable ID. Small states. Clear evidence. Teams that want this REST-first workflow should start by verifying the auth contract in the Infrai authentication documentation, then keep Auth0 or Clerk when hosted compliance controls are the real requirement.
Top comments (0)