You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Describe the bug
The Microsoft.Azure.Cosmos.Spatial.MultiPolygon class is marked internal when issue #70 and associated PR #79 seems to indicate it was made public in version 3.0.0.9-preview. I am considering this a bug because the ensuing PR #136 that made the class internal again contains no indication of motivation, which leads me to believe this was the result of a bad merge or incorrect conflict resolution.
To Reproduce
Attempt to use or reference the Microsoft.Azure.Cosmos.Spatial.MultiPolygon class.
Expected behavior
The Microsoft.Azure.Cosmos.Spatial.MultiPolygon class is publicly accessible.
Actual behavior
Microsoft.Azure.Cosmos.Spatial.MultiPolygon is inaccessible due to its protection level
Environment summary
SDK Version: 3.6.0
OS Version (e.g. Windows, Linux, MacOSX): any
Additional context @kirankumarkolli seems to have both approved PR #79, and created PR #136, so perhaps he can shed light on whether or not the class was intentionally reverted to being internal.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Describe the bug
The Microsoft.Azure.Cosmos.Spatial.MultiPolygon class is marked internal when issue #70 and associated PR #79 seems to indicate it was made public in version 3.0.0.9-preview. I am considering this a bug because the ensuing PR #136 that made the class internal again contains no indication of motivation, which leads me to believe this was the result of a bad merge or incorrect conflict resolution.
To Reproduce
Attempt to use or reference the Microsoft.Azure.Cosmos.Spatial.MultiPolygon class.
Expected behavior
The Microsoft.Azure.Cosmos.Spatial.MultiPolygon class is publicly accessible.
Actual behavior
Microsoft.Azure.Cosmos.Spatial.MultiPolygon is inaccessible due to its protection level
Environment summary
SDK Version: 3.6.0
OS Version (e.g. Windows, Linux, MacOSX): any
Additional context
@kirankumarkolli seems to have both approved PR #79, and created PR #136, so perhaps he can shed light on whether or not the class was intentionally reverted to being internal.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: