Tom Gilbert / Mbed 2 deprecated Q_BLE_SecureHeartRate

Fork of BLE_SecureHeartRate : should this 'work' i.e. require a secure connection on an nRF51-DK? Hopefully I'm just missing something obvious - or is this broken?

Dependencies:   BLE_API mbed nRF51822

Fork of BLE_SecureHeartRate by Bluetooth Low Energy

Diff: main.cpp

Revision:
9:b1cde75ccbbc
Parent:
8:32cdc49c027e
Child:
10:d391a5f1df7c
--- a/main.cpp	Tue May 24 12:04:42 2016 +0000
+++ b/main.cpp	Tue May 24 15:15:03 2016 +0000
@@ -86,8 +86,8 @@
     /* Initialize BLE security */
     bool enableBonding = true;
     bool requireMITM   = true;
-    uint8_t pass[6] = {'1', '2', '3', '4', '5', '6'}; 
-    ble.securityManager().init(enableBonding, requireMITM, SecurityManager::IO_CAPS_NONE, pass);
+    uint8_t pass[6] = {'1', '2', '3', '4', '5', '6'};
+    ble.securityManager().init(enableBonding, requireMITM, SecurityManager::IO_CAPS_DISPLAY_ONLY, pass);
     // to see if the behaviour is any different, try claiming we have Keyboard & Display capability on this peripheral
     // also making sure to no longer specify a static password
     //ble.securityManager().init(enableBonding, requireMITM, SecurityManager::IO_CAPS_KEYBOARD_DISPLAY, NULL);