#24771 closed defect (bug) (fixed)
Login can be blocked if primary_blog is set to a blog the user no longer belongs to that is marked as spam
Reported by: |
|
Owned by: |
|
---|---|---|---|
Milestone: | 3.7 | Priority: | normal |
Severity: | normal | Version: | 3.5.2 |
Component: | Multisite | Keywords: | has-patch needs-codex |
Focuses: | Cc: |
Description
We block logins for user who's primary blog is marked as spam (for historical reasons).
We don't actually check that the user is still a member of the spam blog before blocking the log in.
Which is confusing when you try and work out why they are unable to log in.
Attachments (3)
Change History (11)
#1
@
12 years ago
I thought we had mostly eliminated primary_blog along with the user dashboard. I guess not — but it feels like that should go into the trash too.
Patch looks good.
#2
@
12 years ago
Added a new filter 'wp_authenticate_user_for_blog' to check or not check against user's primary blog.
#3
@
12 years ago
The patch also updates the is_user_spammy() function to take a user object, to avoid having a hard-coded 1 == $user->spam check, if that should be in a separate patch let me know.
#5
@
12 years ago
- Owner set to nacin
- Resolution set to fixed
- Status changed from new to closed
In 24848:
#7
follow-up:
↓ 8
@
12 years ago
How does updating the codex for a future feature/change work - do we add an update before it's released or queue it somehow for after?
#8
in reply to:
↑ 7
@
12 years ago
Replying to brianhogg:
How does updating the codex for a future feature/change work - do we add an update before it's released or queue it somehow for after?
Sometimes we edit it whenever the change is made, and sometimes we just mark needs-codex
for future reference when we do the codex sprint for a new release.
When the new Code Reference is in place and auto-parsing docblocks in the source, there will be less/no need for adding the needs-codex
keyword and more emphasis on providing complete inline documentation.
So in the case of this ticket, we would wait, though I anticipate the Code Reference will be in place (hopefully) before we do the 3.7 codex sprint.
Fix