IllegalArgumentException thrown by startActivityForLinkWithProvider when SMS multi-factor authentication enabled

[SteveByrneOutput]

Environment

• Android Studio version: Ladybug | 2024.2.1
• Firebase Component: Auth
• Component version: firebaseBom = "33.1.2"

Issue

startActivityForLinkWithProvider throws an IllegalArgumentException if the firebaseUser has SMS multi-factor authentication enabled and configured.

If the firebaseUser does not have SMS multi-factor authentication enabled and configured the call will run as expected and trigger either addOnSuccessListener or addOnFailureListener depending on the outcome.

When SMS multi-factor authentication is enabled the callbacks are not triggered.
The user can log in on chrome as expected with their Microsoft credentials and when the app is brought to the foreground again the exception is thrown.
There are no other calls to Firebase auth at this time.

Prior to calling startActivityForLinkWithProvider(...) the user is successfully reauthenticated.

FirebaseAuth.getInstance().currentUser!!.reauthenticate(...) throws FirebaseAuthMultiFactorException as expected

multiFactorResolver.resolveSignIn(...) returns a success as expected.

Wrapping the block in a try/catch does not catch the exception.

Steps to reproduce:

1. Enable and configure SMS multi-factor authentication in Firebase
2. Enable and configure Microsoft authentication in Firebase
3. Enable MFA on Firebase user account
4. Attempt to link Microsoft account to Firebase User account

Relevant Code:

val activity = (LocalContext.current as ComponentActivity)

val provider = OAuthProvider.newBuilder("microsoft.com")
	.addCustomParameter("prompt", "consent").build()

FirebaseAuth.getInstance().currentUser!!.startActivityForLinkWithProvider(
    	activity,
    	provider
	).addOnSuccessListener {
		Timber.i("Success")
	}.addOnFailureListener {
		Timber.e(it)
	}

Stacktrace:

FATAL EXCEPTION: Firebase Blocking Thread #5
            java.lang.IllegalArgumentException: Given String is empty or null
                 	at com.google.android.gms.common.internal.Preconditions.checkNotEmpty(com.google.android.gms:play-services-basement@@18.3.0:2)
                 	at com.google.android.gms.internal.firebase-auth-api.zzagc.<init>(com.google.firebase:firebase-auth@@23.1.0:5)
                 	at com.google.android.gms.internal.firebase-auth-api.zzzk.zza(com.google.firebase:firebase-auth@@23.1.0:114)
                 	at com.google.android.gms.internal.firebase-auth-api.zzzk.zza(com.google.firebase:firebase-auth@@23.1.0:20)
                 	at com.google.android.gms.internal.firebase-auth-api.zzaah.zza(com.google.firebase:firebase-auth@@23.1.0:5)
                 	at com.google.android.gms.internal.firebase-auth-api.zzaeo.zza(com.google.firebase:firebase-auth@@23.1.0:20)
                 	at com.google.android.gms.internal.firebase-auth-api.zzaeo.zza(com.google.firebase:firebase-auth@@23.1.0:64)
                 	at com.google.android.gms.internal.firebase-auth-api.zzadv.zza(com.google.firebase:firebase-auth@@23.1.0:168)
                 	at com.google.android.gms.internal.firebase-auth-api.zzaae.zza(com.google.firebase:firebase-auth@@23.1.0:9)
                 	at com.google.android.gms.internal.firebase-auth-api.zzzk.zza(com.google.firebase:firebase-auth@@23.1.0:88)
                 	at com.google.android.gms.internal.firebase-auth-api.zzzk.zza(com.google.firebase:firebase-auth@@23.1.0:143)
                 	at com.google.android.gms.internal.firebase-auth-api.zzadh.zza(com.google.firebase:firebase-auth@@23.1.0:106)
                 	at com.google.android.gms.internal.firebase-auth-api.zzabu.zza(com.google.firebase:firebase-auth@@23.1.0:15)
                 	at com.google.android.gms.internal.firebase-auth-api.zzaeh.run(com.google.firebase:firebase-auth@@23.1.0:2)
                 	at java.util.concurrent.ThreadPoolExecutor.runWorker(ThreadPoolExecutor.java:1145)
                 	at java.util.concurrent.ThreadPoolExecutor$Worker.run(ThreadPoolExecutor.java:644)
                 	at com.google.firebase.concurrent.CustomThreadFactory.lambda$newThread$0$com-google-firebase-concurrent-CustomThreadFactory(CustomThreadFactory.java:47)
                 	at com.google.firebase.concurrent.CustomThreadFactory$$ExternalSyntheticLambda0.run(D8$$SyntheticClass:0)
                 	at java.lang.Thread.run(Thread.java:1012)

Dependencies

firebaseBom = "33.1.2"

firebase-bom = { group = "com.google.firebase", name = "firebase-bom", version.ref = "firebaseBom" }
firebase-analytics = { group = "com.google.firebase", name = "firebase-analytics" }
firebase-config = { group = "com.google.firebase", name = "firebase-config" }
firebase-crashlytics = { group = "com.google.firebase", name = "firebase-crashlytics" }
firebase-firestore = { group = "com.google.firebase", name = "firebase-firestore" }
firebase-storage = { group = "com.google.firebase", name = "firebase-storage" }
firebase-appcheck-playintegrity = { group = "com.google.firebase", name = "firebase-appcheck-playintegrity" }
firebase-auth = { group = "com.google.firebase", name = "firebase-auth" }

[google-oss-bot]

I couldn't figure out how to label this issue, so I've labeled it for a human to triage. Hang tight.

[lehcar09]

Hi @SteveByrneOutput, thank you for reaching put and reporting the issue. May I ask a few questions for us to narrow down the issue.

• Does this issue only occurring on the specific devices? or different API versions?
• Did your users experience this issue after updating a version of Firebase? Could you share us the stable version before experiencing this issue?

Also, could you try using the latest version on our Firebase (BOM 33.5.1) products to see if that resolves the issue? Thanks!

[SteveByrneOutput]

Hi @lehcar09
This is the first iteration of this feature so our users did not upgrade from a previous stable version.

The issue is reproducible across multiple APIs including
29
30
31
34

Upgrading to BOM 33.5.1 unfortunately doesn’t resolve the issue

[lehcar09]

Hi @SteveByrneOutput, thank you for checking the issue in the latest version. By any chance, have you tried using another provider? If so, does the issue also occurs?

I'll raise this issue to our engineers and get back to you.

[SteveByrneOutput]

@lehcar09 Unfortunately we haven't tried any other providers.
Using the Microsoft is a user request as it's part of our customers security requirements.

Thank you for raising the issue. Let me know if there is any other information I can provide