Forum reply to banned_user check.
authorhttps://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawkg1ahb9sRpZyQp1wuvxpk__x_6llBY5pE <Fergus@web>
Tue, 18 Feb 2014 13:10:55 +0000 (09:10 -0400)
committeradmin <admin@branchable.com>
Tue, 18 Feb 2014 13:10:55 +0000 (09:10 -0400)
doc/forum/How_can_I_invert_the_banned__95__user_check__63__.mdwn

index 90cd7f75c6c0f3d10c5ee02188fc7828b6dfc43a..d53a786823a7f82e5a3f17b54a16e308ee619fbd 100644 (file)
@@ -24,3 +24,5 @@ PS: the user is authenticated via 'httpauth', would that make a difference?
 > users to be able to edit certain areas of the site.
 >
 > --[[smcv]]
+
+>> That was my initial setup but it wasn't working and I got caught-up on the `banned_user` idea.  It would seem I was getting tricked by some credential-caching-weirdness.  Fired up another browser and `locked_pages` works perfectly.  Thanks.  -- fergus