<p>I'm doing a authorization check from a WinForms application with the help of the AzMan authorization provider from Enterprise Library and am receiving the the following error:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Unable to update the password. The value provided as the current password is incorrect. (Exception from HRESULT: 0x8007052B) (Microsoft.Practices.EnterpriseLibrary.Security.AzMan) </p>
  
  <hr>
  
  <p>Unable to update the password. The value provided as the current password is incorrect. (Exception from HRESULT: 0x8007052B) (Microsoft.Interop.Security.AzRoles) </p>
</blockquote>

<p>The AzMan store is hosted in ADAM on another computer in the same domain. Other computers and users do not have this problem. The user making the call has read access to both ADAM and the AzMan store. The computer running the WinForms app and the computer running ADAM are both on Windows XP SP2.</p>

<p>I've had access problems with AzMan before that I've resolved, but this is a new one... What am I missing?</p>

[{'answer_id': 11719, 'author': 'Orion Edwards', 'author_id': 234, 'author_profile': 'https://Stackoverflow.com/users/234', 'pm_score': 0, 'selected': False, 'text': "<p>Rather than checking if the super method exists, you can just define it</p>\n\n<pre><code>class ActiveRecord::Base\n    def after_initialize\n    end\nend\n</code></pre>\n\n<p>This works in my testing, and shouldn't break any of your existing code, because all your other classes which define it will just be silently overriding this method anyway</p>\n"}, {'answer_id': 11744, 'author': 'newtonapple', 'author_id': 1376, 'author_profile': 'https://Stackoverflow.com/users/1376', 'pm_score': 2, 'selected': False, 'text': '<p>Have you tried <code>alias_method_chain</code>?  You can basically chained up all your <code>after_initialize</code> calls.  It acts like a decorator: each new method adds a new layer of functionality and passes the control onto the "overridden" method to do the rest.  </p>\n'}, {'answer_id': 11866, 'author': 'James A. Rosen', 'author_id': 1190, 'author_profile': 'https://Stackoverflow.com/users/1190', 'pm_score': 2, 'selected': False, 'text': "<p>The including class (the thing that inherits from <code>ActiveRecord::Base</code>, which, in this case is <code>Iso</code>) <em>could</em> define its own <code>after_initialize</code>, so any solution other than <code>alias_method_chain</code> (or other aliasing that saves the original) risks overwriting code.  @Orion Edwards' solution is the best I can come up with.  There are others, but they are <strong>far</strong> more hackish.</p>\n\n<p><code>alias_method_chain</code> also has the benefit of creating named versions of the after_initialize method, meaning you can customize the call order in those rare cases that it matters.  Otherwise, you're at the mercy of whatever order the including class includes the mixins.</p>\n\n<p><em>later</em>:</p>\n\n<p>I've posted a question to the ruby-on-rails-core mailing list about creating default empty implementations of all callbacks.  The saving process checks for them all anyway, so I don't see why they shouldn't be there.  The only downside is creating extra empty stack frames, but that's pretty cheap on every known implementation.</p>\n"}, {'answer_id': 905638, 'author': 'Community', 'author_id': -1, 'author_profile': 'https://Stackoverflow.com/users/-1', 'pm_score': 2, 'selected': False, 'text': "<p>You can just throw a quick conditional in there:</p>\n\n<pre><code>super if respond_to?('super')\n</code></pre>\n\n<p>and you should be fine - no adding useless methods; nice and clean.</p>\n"}, {'answer_id': 3867490, 'author': 'valo', 'author_id': 467285, 'author_profile': 'https://Stackoverflow.com/users/467285', 'pm_score': 6, 'selected': True, 'text': '<p>You can use this:</p>\n\n<pre><code>super if defined?(super)\n</code></pre>\n\n<p>Here is an example:</p>\n\n<pre><code>class A\nend\n\nclass B &lt; A\n  def t\n    super if defined?(super)\n    puts "Hi from B"\n  end\nend\n\nB.new.t\n</code></pre>\n'}]
['https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/10810', 'https://Stackoverflow.com', 'https://Stackoverflow.com/users/966/']