marcono1234

Yes this is still the case; I have added a "Steps to reproduce" section to the description to hopefully make it clearer.

Seems to be still the case; have added screenshots showing the issue.

Going to reopen this report, I hope that is alright.

With last updated date of 2022-12-03 16:06:58 UTC:

The issue with the HTTP link still exists; have commented on WEB-5865.

The issue with the incorrect line spacing still exists as well, have uploaded two screenshots showing the issues:

[media]

[media]

Going to reopen this report, I hope that is alright.

@@unknown, this is about the URL used in the link; you can see that by inspecting the HTML or hovering over the link (for Firefox and Edge the URL preview in the bottom left corner has no https:// prefix). minecraft.net will redirect http:// to https:// which is why you eventually will see that the page opens with https://. However, the issue is that initially the browser makes a request with http:// and a malicious user in the same network could perform a man-in-the-middle attack where they serve a malicious minecraft.net page, and that would work because the inital browser request was using http:// instead of https:// (unless you have custom browser settings or extensions which enforce HTTPS).

Going to reopen this report, I hope that is alright.

Seems to be still the case for the Oculus and Xbox page; the Windows 10 edition page does not seem to refer to Realms anymore.
I have edited the description and attached a screenshot showing where the link to Realms occurs on the pages.

(Going to reopen this report, I hope that is alright.)

Cannot reproduce this anymore either. Since I don't know when exactly this was fixed and no one else had confirmed this yet I will resolve this as "Cannot Reproduce".

It looks like Minecraft since 22w42a moves the hover text to the left border of the screen when there would otherwise not be enough space.

@@unknown, it looks like the general issue described in this report ("large item tooltips can get cut off") can still occur when Minecraft does not wrap the text (which is the case here for item names, as shown in the reproduction steps). But that might be a separate issue, and possibly the Mojang developers might consider that a feature request.

Thanks @unknown, yes to me this looks fixed in the sense that the hover text is positioned better (might still not be wrapped though, but that is probably not an issue?). For all these hover text related issues Minecraft now seems to move the hover text to left border of the screen when there would otherwise not be enough space.

@@unknown, I think it might be better to have a separate gamerule (or even separate command which requires higher OP-level) for that. That would make it easier to discover and would avoid potentially undesired effects on other command execution logic (see also MC-124446, not sure if that still applies).

@@unknown, if you can still reproduce this in the latest release or snapshot please search for existing open reports, and in case you don't find any create a new report (and refer to this one here).

@@unknown, the page still looks nearly identical and it still does not properly differentiate between editions. For the launcher that might be fine, but for the other links it can still be confusing.

Thanks, have updated the description.

The footer seems to be fixed. There are other issues with the animated portals and torches, but I am not sure if it is worth fixing those, so I am not creating a new report for that.

The page looks completely different now and I am not sure if physical gift cards are even still sold. So this is resolved, I am closing it as Cannot Reproduce.

For what it's worth, there is a space missing in the new text on https://www.minecraft.net/de-de/redeem: "Bedrock Editionsind jetzt" should be "Bedrock Edition sind jetzt"
Though I am not going to create a new report just for that, so feel free to ignore it.

This Cat voice makes Phantom, Creeper and even mouse have a tough time.

What do you mean by that? Does that sound file include other sounds you were not expecting?

Additionally, the reason why I prefer to use bulleted lists for the "Steps to Reproduce" section is that the ordered lists (1., 2., ...) in my experience have several issues and sometimes become unordered when using code blocks and other types of text formatting. For example, the list will say "1, 2, 3, 1, 5" instead of the expected "1, 2, 3, 4, 5", which of course, creates confusion. I find the bulleted list to be more direct and easier to follow and that's why I prefer to use them; I hope this is okay.

At least with the Jira "Text" mode editor, you can create proper ordered lists quite easily by writing #, e.g.:

# First
# Second
{noformat}
With block
{noformat}
# Third

Jira will then take care of the numbering and formatting, so there is no risk that the list numbers will become incorrect. For example the rendered version from the text above is:

1. First

2. Second

   With block

3. Third

That is also why I was recommending the "Text" mode editor; you can more precisely control how the result will look like and don't have to click on buttons to format text.

In my opinion ordered lists might make it easier to track at which step you are and which step you need to execute next, and they also make it easier to refer to a specific step when something is not working as expected, e.g.: "Command in step 7 failed for me", instead of "Command <long command> failed for me" (which might also be ambigous if there are multiple commands)
Though I don't mind that much if you keep an unordered list here.

@@unknown, this report has been resolved for quite some time already. Please create a new report (in case none exists yet) and we will link it to this one.

Thanks @unknown. Though could you please in the future not completely reformat bug reports. I think for the reproduction steps using an ordered list (1., 2., ...) makes more sense than an unordered list. The code block with the example command also belonged to the previous list item, now it is a separate list item which is a bit confusing. I would recommend to edit on Jira here in "Text" mode (in case you aren't using it already) and switch only to "Visual" mode for previewing the changes. That gives your greater control over the formatting, and also avoids somes issues and bugs Jira has with the Visual editor. The Text Formatting Notation help shows how it can be used.
Though please don't go through every report you have edited to revert your changes.

Additionally I am not sure if updating the summary and description in this way is ideal; one important aspect of this issue is that the minecart is not on rails (previously it said "track"). This should behave similar to a player in a minecart which is not on rails, where the player cannot move either. However, if the minecart is on rails, then it might be desired that mobs can control the movement (similar to how players can control it, even without powered rails).

Thanks for the update. I have resolved this report now as Invalid because it does not occur in 1.19.1-pre 5 (and probably older versions) anymore. The old legacy portal is reused and no new portal is generated.