Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.
The MAS device code consent screen always shows the user code (labelled as "security code". It looks like similar to this:
The requirement to show it comes from RFC 8628 3.3.1:
If the user starts the user interaction by navigating to "verification_uri_complete", then the user interaction described in Section 3.3 is still followed, with the optimization that the user does not need to type in the "user_code". The server SHOULD display the "user_code" to the user and ask them to verify that it matches the "user_code" being displayed on the device to confirm they are authorizing the correct device.
However, MAS currently shows the user code even if the verification_uri (i.e. without user code) was used or if the code= parameter was ignored with the oauth.device_code_user_code_auto_fill_enabled=false configuration option.
Describe the solution you'd like
If either:
verification_uri was used
device_code_user_code_auto_fill_enabled=false
then do not show the "security code" on the consent screen because the user had to enter it on the previous screen.
Describe alternatives you've considered
This is a minor UX optimisation, so the alternative considered is to leave it as is.
Additional context
None
Credit to @pixlwave for suggesting.
Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.
The MAS device code consent screen always shows the user code (labelled as "security code". It looks like similar to this:
The requirement to show it comes from RFC 8628 3.3.1:
However, MAS currently shows the user code even if the
verification_uri(i.e. without user code) was used or if the code= parameter was ignored with theoauth.device_code_user_code_auto_fill_enabled=falseconfiguration option.Describe the solution you'd like
If either:
verification_uriwas useddevice_code_user_code_auto_fill_enabled=falsethen do not show the "security code" on the consent screen because the user had to enter it on the previous screen.
Describe alternatives you've considered
This is a minor UX optimisation, so the alternative considered is to leave it as is.
Additional context
None
Credit to @pixlwave for suggesting.