Opened 20 months ago
Last modified 4 weeks ago
#8824 new enhancement
Remove current password validation and the field from the member profile page
Reported by: | ilianskia | Owned by: | |
---|---|---|---|
Milestone: | Awaiting Review | Priority: | normal |
Severity: | normal | Version: | 1.6 |
Component: | Settings | Keywords: | 2nd-opinion |
Cc: |
Description
This is a follow-up to #8066.
how can the current password validation and the field could be removed completely for all users/members?
When user/member want to change their email and/or password to don't need to type thier current password in case of that change.
if not removing is possible then to add some error message if the user type thier wrong current password as at the moment don't have some messages for that?
Change History (8)
#1
@
20 months ago
- Keywords 2nd-opinion added
- Milestone changed from Awaiting Review to 12.0.0
- Priority changed from highest to normal
- Severity changed from critical to normal
- Version set to 1.6
#2
@
19 months ago
The current way buddypress does this is terrible. Note I’m going from memory here as I’ve not tested it lately
There are several problems
- The password change and email change should be separate pages as they are different functionality
- Email changes shpuld require a confirmation email to the new assess and a warning email to the old (can’t remember if buddypress does this)
3, As far as I am see removing the current screens is impossible .
#3
@
14 months ago
- Component changed from Members to Settings
@ilianskia I just checked, at the moment we do display an error message informing the current password is invalid:
I'm going to take a look at how WordPress handles password change and email change again, I'm not sure this should be managed in 2 various pages as WordPress deals with all Users data from a single page.
Hi,
Thanks for your question. It's not possible. I've just checked how WordPress handles password changes and noticed it wasn't asking for the previous one. I agree we should at least consider stop doing this check or making it possible to bypass this check using a filter.
I'd like to have another opinion from another member of the team about it.