feat(providers): add BoxyHQ SAML Jackson provider

[deepakprabhakara]

https://github.com/boxyhq/jackson is an open-source SAML SSO service that implements SAML login as an OAuth 2.0 flow. Adding it as a provider here for the convenience of our users.

Reasoning 💡

This simplifies the usage for our customers and we hope other NextAuth users will find our SAML integration useful for their enterprise apps.

Checklist 🧢

• Documentation (Added docs for BoxyHQ SAML Jackson provider docs#217)
• [ ] Tests
• Ready to be merged

Affected issues 🎟

n/a

[balazsorban44]

Thanks, looking good, but I added some comments. Could you also provide a screenshot of a successful login for future reference?

[deepakprabhakara]

Thanks @balazsorban44, I'll address the suggestions shortly.

[deepakprabhakara]

[deepakprabhakara]

Thanks @balazsorban44, for very useful suggestions. I wasn't aware of a few things you mentioned there.

[vercel]

This pull request is being automatically deployed with Vercel (learn more).
To see the status of your deployment, click below or on the icon next to each commit.

🔍 Inspect: https://vercel.com/nextauthjs/next-auth/EwMwyrpaeKHLXsvFLsmH9m2r443B
✅ Preview: https://next-auth-git-fork-boxyhq-boxyhq-saml-nextauthjs.vercel.app

[Deployment for ab81e1a canceled]

[deepakprabhakara]

@balazsorban44 Adjusted the code for the monorepo changes but unable to test due to some issues with running the dev app, will look into it soon. nextauthjs/docs#217 can be closed

[deepakprabhakara]

@balazsorban44 Thanks again for the review, I have made the necessary changes and also added an example for you to test.

[balazsorban44]

Checking this now 👍

[balazsorban44]

Thanks. Besides the minor concerns and formatting preferences, is there a way to use consistent naming in all places?

I am seeing BoxyHQ SAML Jackson and all its permutations in different places:

• BoxyHQ SAML Jackson
• "boxyhq-saml"
• "saml"
• SAMLJacksonProfile
• BoxyHQSAMLProvider
• SAML Jackson

We should try to stick to a similar name, derived from the same brand naming in all places like docs, TypeScript, function names, ids, etc.

Could we unify these? 🙏

[balazsorban44]

So that I understand this correctly. These values are always dummy? 🤔

It might be my limited knowledge of SAML, but setting a hardcoded clientSecret does not sound right in OAuth 2.0. What am I missing?

[deepakprabhakara]

@balazsorban44 Please see here - #3782 (comment). User can opt for a proper clientSecret or the convenience of tenant and product.

[deepakprabhakara]

Also this configuration can be set during deployment to change the default dummy value - https://boxyhq.com/docs/jackson/deploy/env-variables#client_secret_verifier

[balazsorban44]

I have to add, the demo provider is wonderful, I wish most providers would have a public example like that 🙏 ✨

[deepakprabhakara]

Adding a screenshot of our hosted demo:

[deepakprabhakara]

I have to add, the demo provider is wonderful, I wish most providers would have a public example like that 🙏 ✨

Thanks @balazsorban44 🙏, we built the Mock SAML tool specifically for this purpose (and to ease testing as well).

[balazsorban44]

Thank you!

[deepakprabhakara]

Many thanks @balazsorban44!