Remove display name for OIDC

[danroth27]

Is there really a good reason to specify a display name for OIDC? Can we make the default extension method for adding OIDC not do that and specify null? I don’t think a generic display name of OpenIdConnect is all that useful. You really need to know which authority you are talking to.

[Tratcher]

It's better to show a generic name than to not show up at all, no?

[HaoK]

Why don't you use the authority name as the scheme instead of the default so it doesn't show up as openidconnect.

…

On Apr 22, 2017, at 7:00 PM, Chris R ***@***.***> wrote: It's better to show a generic name than to not show up at all, no? — You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or mute the thread.

[danroth27]

In my case I don't want it to show up at all because the OIDC provider is in the app.

When would the display name "OpenIDConnect" ever be helpful?

[Eilon]

Talked to @danroth27 and this shows up in the IdentityService side of the house (the code that's in the MVC Area) because it "leaks over" from the main app's usage of OIDC to connect to the IdentityService.

Ideally we would make the OIDC auth provider visible to only the main app and not to the IdentityService, but there might not be a good way to do that.

Right now this is just worked around in the template code by clearing the name.

[Eilon]

Given that in #1186 we will make it easier to clear out the name, we feel it isn't worth adding anything special here. This is a slightly unusual scenario to begin with because the OIDC client and server are one and the same.