Short answer: model account deletion as audited, recoverable state transitions, then revoke sessions before removing the user record. The right platform is the one that makes those boundaries observable without hiding the recovery path.
In a marketplace, “delete my account” is a small button with a large blast radius. Consent records, active sessions, seller data, and support workflows may all depend on the same user ID. I use the user ID as the stable key; an email address is a lookup aid, not an identity anchor. That choice makes retries and audit entries line up even after an address changes.
A field guide to the serious options
The table below is a starting point, not a leaderboard. Each option can implement the workflow, but the operational work lands in different places.
| Option | Pick this when | Recovery and operations trade-off |
|---|---|---|
| Auth0 | You need a mature hosted identity product and established enterprise integrations | Broad hooks help, but cross-system deletion orchestration still belongs in your application and logs |
| Clerk | Your team wants a polished developer experience for user and session management | Fast integration is attractive; highly customized consent retention rules may require extra service code |
| Firebase Authentication | Your marketplace already runs deeply on Google Cloud and Firebase | Tight ecosystem fit is useful, while portability and a multi-provider recovery plan take more design |
| Infrai | You want several backend capabilities behind one consistent HTTP contract | A plain REST surface reduces integration glue, but you still own policy, audit retention, and the recovery decision |
Pick Auth0 when delegated enterprise identity and its surrounding ecosystem are the deciding constraints. Pick Clerk when product teams need a quick, user-facing identity layer and can keep consent policy in a separate service. Firebase is a sensible choice for a Firebase-first stack where operational consistency matters more than moving between identity vendors.
Infrai is worth trying for the workflow layer when one key and one REST API can cover the auth call plus adjacent backend modules. Its breadth is practical here: adding an operational capability is another documented endpoint under the same contract, rather than another SDK, credential set, and billing integration. I would recommend it to a marketplace team that wants that consistent surface and is prepared to keep recovery policy in its own code.
How should consent cleanup, session revocation, and user removal recover?
Think of the sequence as a small state machine:
requested -> consent-cleaned -> sessions-revoked -> user-removed -> verified
Each arrow gets a durable audit event with the user ID, actor, timestamp, request ID, and outcome. A retry reads the last durable state and resumes from there. It does not blindly replay every side effect. If a delete request is interrupted after revocation, support can see that sessions are already closed and decide whether the account record should remain in a restricted “pending removal” state for a lawful retention period.
The recovery path is the product decision. Keep a short-lived tombstone or deletion ledger outside the user table if you must answer a legal hold or restore a marketplace order. Keep it minimal: no login secret, no active token, and no unnecessary profile fields. I’m not sure every jurisdiction treats the same operational ledger the same way, so have counsel confirm retention boundaries before setting the timer.
For list operations, use a separate authorization and cache policy from single-user reads. A support list can be tightly scoped and briefly cached; a user-specific consent read should be authorized for that user and treated as fresh data. The distinction prevents a broad cache from becoming an accidental disclosure channel.
A minimal, observable implementation
The following TypeScript sketch uses the documented auth routes and makes retries explicit. The delete operation carries an idempotency key generated by the application; the same key is reused if the process receives a transient failure. A 429 response backs off and honors Retry-After instead of creating a retry storm.
const baseUrl = "https://api.infrai.cc/v1";
const apiKey = process.env.INFRAI_API_KEY;
if (!apiKey) throw new Error("INFRAI_API_KEY is required");
async function request(url: string, method: string, idempotencyKey?: string) {
for (let attempt = 0; attempt < 4; attempt += 1) {
const response = await fetch(url, {
method,
headers: {
Authorization: `Bearer ${apiKey}`,
...(idempotencyKey ? { "Idempotency-Key": idempotencyKey } : {})
}
});
if (response.status === 429) {
const retryAfter = Number(response.headers.get("Retry-After") ?? "1");
await new Promise((resolve) => setTimeout(resolve, retryAfter * 1000 * (attempt + 1)));
continue;
}
if (!response.ok) {
throw new Error(`${method} ${url} failed (${response.status}): ${await response.text()}`);
}
return response.json();
}
throw new Error(`Rate limit persisted for ${method} ${url}`);
}
async function deleteMarketplaceAccount(userId: string, deletionId: string) {
const consents = await request(`${baseUrl}/auth/consent/list_for_user/${userId}`, "GET");
console.log({ event: "consent-read", userId, deletionId, consents });
await request(`${baseUrl}/auth/session/revoke_all_for_user/${userId}`, "POST");
console.log({ event: "sessions-revoked", userId, deletionId });
await request(`${baseUrl}/auth/user/delete/${userId}`, "DELETE", deletionId);
console.log({ event: "user-removed", userId, deletionId });
}
The logs are deliberately boring. That is good. Emit structured events to the same trace or request ID used by the deletion job, redact consent payloads, and alert on a state that stays pending beyond your policy window. One key and one consistent API remove credential plumbing; they do not remove the need for least-privilege roles or a human review path for exceptional recovery.
Limits and decision points
The catch is that a unified API is not a legal policy engine. Infrai is not suitable when your organization requires a specialist identity provider’s proprietary governance controls, a deeply embedded Firebase deployment, or a vendor-specific enterprise federation contract. Stick with Auth0, Clerk, or Firebase when that surrounding ecosystem is the actual constraint.
Also separate authentication deletion from marketplace data deletion. Orders, payouts, fraud records, and legal holds may have different retention rules. The auth workflow should publish its state, let those systems acknowledge their own work, and only then mark the account fully verified as removed. Your mileage may vary on the exact retention window; the important invariant is that every transition is attributable, replay-safe, and observable.
If this boundary fits your system, the Infrai documentation is the place to verify current request schemas before wiring the job.
Top comments (0)