After attacking an iron golem spawned from a village the iron golem will attack you and toss you into the air. However the player won't take any fall damage when landing on the ground.
How to reproduce
1. Find an iron golem in a village, or iron farm.
2. Attack the golem, and let it attack you back
3. After being tossed into the air, you'll notice you won't take any fall damage.
Related issues
testing discovered
Attachments
Comments


Thank you for your report!
However, this issue is Working as Intended.
The report you have submitted is working as intended: Parity with JAVA.
Please note, that mechanics of the game may change between updates.
Things such as graphics, sounds, world creation, biomes, redstone, villagers, and animals may not work the same in current versions.

Attached
[media]to show that iron golems knock mobs 8 blocks into the air. I don't think that is parity with Java edition.
The same test run on a player shows the same uplift.
[media]
However, there is something strange going on with server-client correlation.
I tested the fall damage with the player landing at a lower elevation than where they (and the iron golem) start. With a 2-3 block drop-off where the player lands I take 1 heart of damage. With a 4-block drop-off I take 2 hearts of damage. So it appears that fall damage is calculated as if the player was only knocked 3 blocks in the air, but also rounded down the nearest full heart.
The player's coordinates and the first and third-person views show a vertical knockback of only 3 blocks
.
Other players see the second player take 8 blocks of vertical knockback then slide down slowly and teleport to the 3 block vertical position before landing.
From what other players have told me the 3-block knockback is parity with Java. But there is clearly a bug here with that parity change only being applied to players as a client-authoritative correction to the server, instead of the being applied to the actual iron golem's vertical knockback.

so, this isn't WAI? 😅

The lack of fall damage is WAI based on the developer statement above, but from my testing it looks like they did not implement it well. After thinking about it I realized it would be best to make a new report on the problems, which I have done at MCPE-136616.