I have to agree with @chris.dawson.emsere. The lack of feature parity in the transition from Rules to Action, and the fact that we didn’t come across any documentation which indicated this was going to be functional gap is awkward to say the least. (I certainly glad we flagged it in testing, however would definitely have preferred to find a more elegant solution.)
I get the impression that ROPF users make up a pretty small segment of the Auth0 user base, and overlap with those who also lean-in heavily on Actions in customizing their login pipeline would be a small fraction of those.
Someone suggested there’s an argument to be made that those who are implementing a more complex solution which encompasses ROPF should also be able to encompass the extended logic which Actions provide within their own application. However having a separate implementation of business / authorization logic is by no means an ideal outcome.
While I doubt the current five votes are sufficient to see Auth0 put cycles into addressing this any time soon, I’m certainly hopeful there will eventually be some kind of reasonable equivalency.