# Any objection to adding an SSO IDP parameter?

**URL:** <https://meta.discourse.org/t/any-objection-to-adding-an-sso-idp-parameter/154299>\
**Category:** SSO\
**Created:** [June 9, 2020, 1:33pm UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/any-objection-to-adding-an-sso-idp-parameter/154299 "2020-06-09T13:33:59Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Amethi](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/meta/user_avatar/meta.discourse.org/amethi/32/88690_2.png) [@Amethi](https://meta.discourse.org/u/Amethi)\
**Post date:** [June 9, 2020, 1:33pm UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/any-objection-to-adding-an-sso-idp-parameter/154299/1 "2020-06-09T13:33:59Z")

</div>

I would like to add an optional parameter to the `/session/sso` path that the controller would add onto the IDP request URL. The purpose is to tell the IDP which authentication flow to initiate, i.e. social login or local login. I can’t do that without giving some kind of signal to the IDP as part of the initial [Discourse SSO](https://meta.discourse.org/t/13045?silent=true) redirect.

I’m thinking something like idp\_param as the optional parameter, i.e.:  
` /session/sso?return_path=/&idp_param=fb`

Would there be any objection to this and a pull request?

The reason for this is I want to create a big banner that invites anonymous visitors to sign in using one of the up-stream social providers configured on our IDP as I think the single ‘Login’ button Discourse provides is not inviting or informative enough.

Current mock-up where the two social buttons would add a idp\_param to the URL:

 ![image](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/meta/original/3X/6/3/6366bfcf1881aea838aeda06294d4eb3e1df1579.png)

---

_[View the full topic](https://meta.discourse.org/t/any-objection-to-adding-an-sso-idp-parameter/154299)._