Cool new bonus found! HFS2.4 is now compatible with UTF-8 template files (and maybe more?) so you can put icons as a regular text character in the template. Very efficient!! Please default {.set ini|use-system-icons=no.} for HFS2.4
I will surely change that in the future but it's too early.
def settings should match the def tpl, and it still using the system icons.
request: please don't use "api level" for censor because, for the future, it could be dreadful if .exe automatic update suddenly changes server-owner's template at random unannounced times. That is in conflict with .exe updates. The api-level moving target is not feasible for production server. Your previous idea of banning the [unauthorized] section was much better.
You are right about automatic updates, it can be a disrupting experience. I don't really have a better solution a this moment.
Maybe it's better if tpl change is not force, and let the server unable to login people until the admin acts? What's worst? IDK.
Anway, banning [unauthorized] is exactly the same thing. You update and you get the error and are switched to default tpl. I don't understand why you think there is a difference. Probably you are not thinking of old tpl, but of tpl that were adapted for 2.4
I chose to continue omitting the [unauthorized] section because it is never reached due to diy /~login page.
indeed, you are talking about 2.4-aware tpl.
Of course they will work.
But you will have to comply. In 2.3 the [unauthorized] section is sent when the credentials fail, i think. The documentation is bad about it, tells nothing.
I tried to have a "smart" method, but got sick of it. Sometimes explicit declaration is better than euristhic methods.
Bug: {.if|!%user%|{:howdy stranger:}.} worked in HFS2.3, fails in HFS2.4. Need to double-check the ! (reverse logic shortcut), because it faulted a bit.
i just tried. It never worked. It is just not supported and I don't think someone said it is. It's not in the documentation either.
I also warned you about this error in your tpl in another forum thread.
Make a better test in 2.3, that one of yours is probably fooling you {.if|!1|wrong|good.}
auto-ban not achievable, so Security Feature Request:
this request is in to-do since forever and will likely be addressed soon. Anyway i don't see why you say "not achievable".