From d073e727cb09e72d0348ee2826eae348606a385a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Shannon Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2018 15:11:31 +1000 Subject: [PATCH] minor merge fixes --- src/Umbraco.Core/Models/Packaging/PackageAction.cs | 2 +- src/Umbraco.Web/Routing/PublishedRequest.cs | 2 +- 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/Umbraco.Core/Models/Packaging/PackageAction.cs b/src/Umbraco.Core/Models/Packaging/PackageAction.cs index dd9a4fd1a5..e941c5729a 100644 --- a/src/Umbraco.Core/Models/Packaging/PackageAction.cs +++ b/src/Umbraco.Core/Models/Packaging/PackageAction.cs @@ -27,7 +27,7 @@ namespace Umbraco.Core.Models.Packaging set => _runAt = value; } - public bool Undo //NOTE: Should thid default to "False"? but the documentation says default "True" (http://our.umbraco.org/wiki/reference/packaging/package-actions) + public bool Undo { get => _undo ?? true; set => _undo = value; diff --git a/src/Umbraco.Web/Routing/PublishedRequest.cs b/src/Umbraco.Web/Routing/PublishedRequest.cs index 17a9cc89e1..1acf794abe 100644 --- a/src/Umbraco.Web/Routing/PublishedRequest.cs +++ b/src/Umbraco.Web/Routing/PublishedRequest.cs @@ -487,7 +487,7 @@ namespace Umbraco.Web.Routing /// // Note: we used to set a default value here but that would then be the default // for ALL requests, we shouldn't overwrite it though if people are using [OutputCache] for example - // see: https://our.umbraco.org/forum/using-umbraco-and-getting-started/79715-output-cache-in-umbraco-752 + // see: https://our.umbraco.com/forum/using-umbraco-and-getting-started/79715-output-cache-in-umbraco-752 internal HttpCacheability Cacheability { get; set; } ///