From 442c53fc2da9eadd30dad74231815569f8ca2fbf Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: "https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawkg1ahb9sRpZyQp1wuvxpk__x_6llBY5pE" Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2014 09:10:55 -0400 Subject: [PATCH] Forum reply to banned_user check. --- .../How_can_I_invert_the_banned__95__user_check__63__.mdwn | 2 ++ 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) diff --git a/doc/forum/How_can_I_invert_the_banned__95__user_check__63__.mdwn b/doc/forum/How_can_I_invert_the_banned__95__user_check__63__.mdwn index 90cd7f75c..d53a78682 100644 --- a/doc/forum/How_can_I_invert_the_banned__95__user_check__63__.mdwn +++ b/doc/forum/How_can_I_invert_the_banned__95__user_check__63__.mdwn @@ -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 -- 2.39.5