[MCPE-173826] Parity: Bedrock doesn't have "/spreadplayers ... under"

Updated by @unknown

Summary:
"/spreadplayers ... under" was added in Java 1.16, but not in Bedrock.

https://www.minecraft.net/article/nether-update-java

Added an optional argument to specify maximum height. New syntax: spreadplayers <center> [under ]

Steps to reproduce:

Enter a world with cheats on
Go to chat
Type:
```
/spreadplayers ... under
```

Observed results:
There is no /spreadplayers ... under in Bedrock.

Expected results:
It should be there in Bedrock as Java has it in Java Edition 1.16.

Attachments

Comments 5

v-baslod 2023-08-02T07:26:55Z

Thank you for your report!

However, this issue has been temporarily closed as Awaiting Response.

I do not see a maxHeight argument for this command in Java Edition. Could you please provide a screenshot?

This ticket will automatically reopen when you reply.

Quick Links:
📓 Issue Guidelines – 💬 Mojang Support – 📓 Project Summary – 📧 Suggestions – 📖 Minecraft Wiki

Hangekisobu 2023-08-02T07:55:37Z

oh i was a little wrong

KR_ 2024-01-15T15:49:26Z

Unfortunately, due to the command systems being used differ between platforms, parity issues concerning commands aren't considered valid, and are thus deemed "feature requests" instead.

MC-262950 MC-236575

[Mod] LateLag 2024-01-16T23:34:49Z

Thank you for your report!
However, this issue is Invalid.

Commands in general are not at parity at the moment, and the differences are being worked on one step at a time. New additions made to a command, even if it's an existing one, count as feature requests.

Quick Links:
📓 Bug Tracker Guidelines – 💬 Community Support – 📧 Mojang Support (Technical Issues) – 📧 Microsoft Support (Account Issues)
📓 Project Summary – ✍️ Feedback and Suggestions – 📖 Game Wiki

Splash 2024-03-30T17:50:21Z

@unknown This assertion is incorrect. Applying that reasoning would also render MCPE-157696 invalid. While bug reports solely concerning the addition of new commands may not be considered valid, the inclusion of a new parameter within an existing command certainly constitutes a valid parity issue. Additionally, MCPE-166214, MCPE-165278, and MCPE-172467 are also deemed valid.