-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 689
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Consider adding a new loadDiscoveryDocumentAnd.....()
function
#359
Comments
Great idea! |
I'd love to see this as well, as I prefer to avoid visible redirects. Any plans when this will be added? |
Honestly, I couldn't get the authentication working remotely consistently without something like this... this seems to patch all the holes to me. |
I've found that:
So I'm closing my own PR. If you landed here to get a nice login sequence, I suggest checking out my example implementation and making it your own. |
While investigating how to best use the library, I found that these:
loadDiscoveryDocumentAndTryLogin()
loadDiscoveryDocumentAndLogin()
both did not suit my needs. I want something in between, because it might be the case that:
tryLogin(...)
won't helpIn these cases the methods:
loadDiscoveryDocumentAndTryLogin()
will not log you inloadDiscoveryDocumentAndLogin()
will log you in, but it will redirect to-and-back from the IdServerThe redirects are not needed, because the session with IdServer allows for a silent refresh.
So I wrote this flow:
I suggest adding this to the library as an additional convenience method (happy to make a PR if feedback's a green light). The only thing is I'm not sure what name to give it that's in line with the existing names, makes sense, and explains what's happening. The best I can come up with is
loadDiscoveryDocumentAndLoginAsSilentlyAsPossible()
which of course is terrible. Suggestions welcome.Alternatively, if this new function is deemed to much for the basis, it might be good to make it part (a) of the readme, and/or (b) the samples, and/or (c) as an "additional documentation" bit.
Or perhaps my logic is completely flawed?
Feedback welcome!
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: