Open
Conversation
Closed
Anna-Sutton
requested changes
Feb 16, 2026
Co-authored-by: Anna-Sutton <anna.sutton9@nhs.net>
Co-authored-by: Anna-Sutton <anna.sutton9@nhs.net>
Contributor
|
See latest @frankieroberto |
Collaborator
Author
|
@Anna-Sutton have updated this again (based on what we agreed on the call) - would you mind double checking it? |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This updates the log in pages to demonstrate how we might enable the use of additional third party log in systems, alongside our existing Okta log in.
Screenshots
Log in page
(Showing some fictional alternative log in options)
This assumes that the number of additional log in options is between 1 and 5 or so. In this case we could show Okta as the primary button (as it is used by all our existing users), followed by secondary buttons for the additional options:
If the number of additional options got longer, we might switch to using radios instead:
(And if there were even more options, we might need a rethink)
Error: account not recognised
This would show if you successfully log in with a third party provider, and then get redirected back, but the account you logged in with is not associated with an existing RAVS account.
Error: email matches but you've not used this log in method before
This would show if you log in successfully with a 3rd party provider, but the email address you have logged in with is associated with a different 3rd party provider.
In this scenario, we would require the user to first log in with the provider they used previously (but we would be unable to tell them which one this is), and then when they have done so they would be logged in to the service AND the 2 providers would be linked, allowing them to use either option in future.