M365 aug22 #1196
M365 aug22 #1196
Conversation
|
Changelog still needs to be updated. |
|
I'd like to wait for #1199 to ensure there are no regressions to the generated stuff |
| @@ -40521,19 +40468,23 @@ | |||
| "QName": "w:numId", | |||
| "PropertyName": "NumberID", | |||
| "Type": "Int32Value", | |||
| "PropertyComments": "Numbering Definition Instance ID", | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why do you remove the descriptive PropertyComments and replace it with the local name of the Open XML element?
I don't know what the convention for those PropertyComments values is, but it looks like there is some inconsistency in those that are introduced in this commit.
| "PropertyName": "AbstractNumId", | ||
| "PropertyComments": "Abstract Numbering Definition Reference" | ||
| "PropertyName": "AbstractNumId" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why do you remove the PropertyComments?
| "QName": "w:ilvl", | ||
| "PropertyName": "LevelIndex", | ||
| "Type": "Int32Value", | ||
| "PropertyComments": "Numbering Level ID", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
See above. This is an example of descriptive PropertyComments. In the cases above, either the corresponding XML element's local name was used, or no value was provided (i.e., the key was deleted).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@ThomasBarnekow we've noticed this in the past as well and have not gotten around to understanding it. The backend processor does all this automatically. So we'll need to take some time to review the code and understand why it changes these. They should not hold up the code release as they don't affect the logic or API surface.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@ThomasBarnekow this answer relates to all your questions about the PropertyComments as they all are automatically generated and we didn't explicitly change anything. We will check on all of the issues.
No description provided.