Please make the Page Preview image in the email larger so that users can consume directly from the email.  This would be soooo useful! ... View more

Problem: In S3NS, all API and authentication calls must use custom sovereign endpoints . However, there is no option in Power BI Desktop or the Gateway to override or configure these endpoints.   Ask: Enable support in Power BI Desktop and Data Gateway to configure or override default BigQuery endpoints, allowing connections to sovereign environments like S3NS. Benefit: This would unblock users operating in sovereign cloud environments and ensure compatibility with region-specific security and compliance requirements. ... View more

A user is unable to select Analyze in Excel from a report within an app in the Power BI service. The user has been granted Viewer access to the workspace, and the customer does not want to provide Build permission on the semantic model to end users. The user understands that this behavior is expected under the current permission setup and would like to know if there are any available workarounds for this limitation.   ... View more

Category color in the new Card visual resets when repointing to a different data source. Even when using the same field, changing the data source causes the category/header color to revert to default. This breaks formatting consistency and requires manual rework during dataset switching (e.g., Dev → Prod). Formatting should persist when the same field is used. ... View more

We don't currently use Fabric Copilot because of the CU risk or our Fabric capacity, and as a result have it turned off on our tenant.   Power BI report builders and consumers in my organization resort to copying and pasting code and issues to M365 Copilot for help, which requires additional time and loses context of the object you are working on, and is not agentic. We are losing productivity gains and potentially better results.    Pro code developers are starting to use GitHub Copilot in VS Code but this is not accessible for everyone.   I can see that the Fabric and Power BI Copilot features released to date and data agents would be beneficial for both types of users, however due to the cost it will remain turned off for the foreseeable future unless the costing changes or we can bring our own user licence for AI features.   Most of the Power BI builders/developers in my org have a M365 Copilot or GitHub Copilot licence, I happen to have both at the moment. It seems strange that we can't use these Microsoft licences that we already pay for to use Copilot in Fabric and Power BI. Can we please have the ability to bring our own user AI licences.   The uptake of Fabric copilot features will increase and we will require more user licences as a result. GitHub Copilot and M365 Copilot also have better governance features for organization admins to track queries and usage. ... View more

Having the ability to run python code outside of the notebook environment (like we can for pyspark jobs) could be a real win for efficiency and modularity. It would allow users to package robust, unit-tested code and deploy it to the fabric environment where it could run as a cost-effective single-node job. Databricks has an implementation for this, and it would be really nice to see something similar come to Fabric. Notebooks are great for ad-hoc or exploratory stuff, but building something robust in them feels like shoving a peg into a wrong-shaped hole. They are (nearly) impossible to unit test, so you often end up creating libraries which allow you to package transformations in a way that can be tested, then your notebooks end up being essentially thin wrappers around a bunch of external code. I think the most obvious example for this is the number of Fabric DBT implementations that essentially involve installing DBT core into a notebook and running it there (I know there is DBT jobs coming, but this is beside the point). This is a symptom of a larger need for this type of hosting/execution of code within the environment. Yes, you could host the code on a vm external to Fabric but that goes against the ethos of a unified data platform. Offering something like this would be a great way to increase the flexibility and extensibility of the platform. The implementation can be fairly barebones and developer forward, aiming to provide maximum flexibility and extensibility. Basically a way to run python scripts/CLI tools on the Fabric capacity.    ... View more

When renaming a semantic model in the DEV workspace, a duplicate name error is thrown—even though no such item exists in DEV. The conflict seems to come from the same name being present in the UAT workspace, due to deployment pipeline pairing logic.  This blocks standard naming alignment across environments and causes confusion due to error message.   Renaming should be allowed if no duplicate exists within the same workspace. Cross-workspace conflicts should not block the operation. ... View more

At present, the Power BI Admin Activity Events API supports retrieving audit events only for a maximum lookback period of 28 days. This limitation poses challenges for organizations that require long-term retention, historical analysis, compliance reporting, or forensic investigations based on audit data. We would like to request an enhancement to this functionality, enabling the retrieval of activity events beyond the current 28-day restriction. Having the ability to access historical events without time-based limitations would significantly improve administrative visibility, governance, and compliance capabilities for enterprise customers. ... View more

💓 Yes please to custom access messaging - upvote the socks off this post! 💓 We stilll have a gap in the access messages feature in Power BI in 2026 - lets see if we can muster enough upvotes to change it! Semantic models can have a unique access message on them, however workbooks cannot have a unique access message on them. If you host hundreds of Power BI reports, the administration on the dreaded default "I would like access" message is no fun. Users today have their own sharepoints, documents, why cant we have the functionality on customization of that dreaded access message?     Yes you can use the app to change it in a workspace, but the issue with that is only one app per workspace is allowed. Why should users opt to add more workspaces making topologies more complex when they need not have to be that way. Org apps is introduced 2026 which allows multiple apps per workspace - but only one access message is allowed. This should be a standard in apps if were moving that way, each app should be capable of having a customized message per app. We get user complaints all the time on this subject, from the many posts even this one as solved so do others.   Two things i would like this idea to change which would give a gain to anyone who administers a workspace. 1. Workbook access message customization for those who dont want to use the app as standard in 2026. 2. Org apps to include custom message per app as standard in 2026.   What do we need to facilitate change? Upvotes, encourage all your users to upvote this proposal and add some comments, lets see in 2026 if we can fix this issue! 💪 ... View more

The current card visual forces users to overlap elements or waste copious amounts of time creating custom visuals. The new card feature should give users the ability to create multiple cards in a single container and provide a greater level of customization. ... View more

It would be beneficial to incorporate features from Pivot tables that allow for the expansion and collapse of columns and hierarchical column groups within tabular visuals. This would not only solve the current limitations of matrices but also provide report creators with the flexibility to hide and show rows and columns, saving these settings for future use, thus eliminating the need to scroll through irrelevant data. ... View more

Enabling customized calculations at the query level for subtotals and grand totals would offer greater flexibility in reporting and preserve performance. Efficient organization of control settings to modify the style of these totals separately will empower report creators to achieve their desired appearance, while addressing their need for more control and customization in reporting. ... View more

Imagine a world where report creators can automatically apply slicer and filter selections based on specific logic, revolutionizing data analysis and user experience. This innovative approach eliminates any need for complex workarounds, optimizes slicer functionality, and paves the way for more efficient and effective data reporting. ... View more

Problem statement: Fabric Data Factory copy activity error messages when sink is lakehouse are very generic. Example: Failure happened on 'Sink' side. 'Type=Microsoft.Data.DeltaLake.MetadataChangedException,Message=conflicting metadata change,Source=Microsoft.DataTransfer.ClientLibrary,'   If we could gain better visibility on what is the column causing the issue or stack trace to expose a bit more technicalities it would be easier to investigate FDF errors - potentially we wouldn't also need to engage Fabric support team for root cause analysis. We would like to see error messages which are detailed to the same extent as in Azure Data Factory. ... View more

Interpreting visuals without a clear legend to indicate logic behind specific styles can lead to confusion and decision-making errors. An idea to enhance clarity and transparency by ensuring legends and tooltips accurately display colors, patterns, and other visual components influenced by logics, would enable report consumers to easily understand the applied logic and make more effective decisions. ... View more

This feels like a genuine design bug related to how Fabric and Power BI fit together. I'm working in a workspace backed by an F64 Fabric capacity. Using the same user account (Fabric Free), I can edit and refresh semantic models just fine through notebooks, pipelines, the Fabric CLI, and Git integration (PBIP/TMDL). All of those are documented Fabric paths, and they work as expected. If I try to do the same thing from the Power BI Service UI (for example, manually refreshing the semantic model) I get hit with an "Upgrade to a paid Power BI license" message. Same model, same workspace, same capacity, same user, different outcome. The only difference is whether I clicked a button in the UI or initiated the action through a Fabric surface. The issue is about inconsistent enforcement of the same capability. Whether an operation is allowed shouldn't depend on whether it's triggered via the UI versus Fabric orchestration. That makes behavior feel non‑deterministic and forces operators to avoid the UI entirely for tasks that are otherwise allowed and already running on paid capacity. It also creates artificial licensing pressure. The capacity is paid for, the operation is supported and allowed via multiple paths, but you still need Pro just to press the UI button. That's hard to justify, and it actively worsens governance and operability. There are already community threads where people hit parts of this problem (for example, being blocked from UI refresh with Fabric Free licenses on capacity), but none really address the bigger issue: Fabric allows the operation everywhere except the Power BI UI. At minimum, this should be reconciled. Either the UI entitlement checks should align with what Fabric already allows, or there should be a clear, capacity‑scoped "operator" capability for management of Power BI items. Even clear in‑product guidance explaining why automation is allowed but UI actions are blocked would be better than the current experience. Right now it just feels fragmented. Fabric presents itself as a unified, capacity‑first platform, but the Power BI UI still behaves as if it's living under a separate, legacy licensing model. ... View more

Description Hi community, I’d like to raise a feature request related to governance and connection management in Microsoft Fabric, specifically for Email (Office 365 Outlook) and Microsoft Teams connectors used in Data Factory pipelines. Scenario In enterprise environments, it is common to require: Centralized management of connections (e.g., Email / Teams) Reuse of the same connection across multiple workspaces (Dev/Test/Prod, or multiple domains) Consistent governance, including credential lifecycle management and auditing However, when working with Fabric pipelines that use Outlook or Teams activities, we observed the following behavior: When deploying a pipeline to another workspace, the activity becomes inactive A new user authentication connection must be created in the target workspace If the connection is not recreated, deployment fails or the activity cannot run This behavior is documented here: Outlook activity → Microsoft Learn Teams activity → Microsoft Learn Current Behavior (Documented Limitation) As per official documentation: Outlook / Teams connections are tied to user authentication When moving pipelines across workspaces: “The activity will be inactive in the target workspace until you create a new user authentication connection there” [learn.microsoft.com] Same behavior applies to Teams activity [learn.microsoft.com] This effectively means: Connections are scoped to the workspace Connections are not reusable across workspaces Each workspace requires manual reconfiguration Expected Behavior From an enterprise governance perspective, we would expect: Ability to define centralized, reusable connections Secure sharing of those connections across multiple workspaces Support for CI/CD scenarios without manual re-authentication Reduced duplication of connections and credentials Why this matters Other connection types in Fabric (e.g., cloud connections) are moving toward shared and governed models, but Email and Teams connectors still require per-workspace authentication. This creates an inconsistency in the platform’s governance model, especially for enterprise adoption. Feature Request We would like to request support for: Secure, reusable Email and Teams connections Cross-workspace connection sharing Centralized management (similar to cloud connections / gateways) CI/CD-friendly connection lifecycle ... View more

Description: Currently, export format settings for paginated reports can only be controlled at the tenant level or security group level via admin portal settings. There is no way to restrict export formats (e.g., allow only PDF) on a per-report or per-workspace basis.   Business Scenario: For compliance and audit purposes, some reports must be exported only in specific formats (e.g., PDF only). With the current design, disabling Excel export applies to all paginated reports in the tenant, which is too broad and impacts other use cases.   Requested Feature: Please add the ability to configure allowed export formats at the report level or at minimum at the workspace level, so that specific reports can be locked to PDF-only export for audit/compliance purposes. ... View more

Make T‑SQL notebook execution fully compatible with Service Principals by removing or replacing internal OBO calls that reject SPNs.   When pipelines or automated runs execute Fabric notebooks using a Service Principal (SPN), T‑SQL notebook cells can fail because internal Fabric calls use an on‑behalf‑of (OBO) authentication flow that does not accept SPNs. This breaks CI/CD, scheduled jobs, and automation that must run under non‑user identities.   Request: Ensure T‑SQL notebook execution does not rely on OBO flows that reject Service Principals. Make notebook runtime APIs and internal calls accept Service Principals consistently. Publish clear documentation listing required permissions and recommended configuration for Service Principals when running notebooks. See error here: (Moving to Stored procedures is step backwards we want move forward with -t-sql notebooks for enterprise scale usage ) https://community.fabric.microsoft.com/t5/Data-Engineering/Fabric-Pipeline-T-SQL-Notebook-and-Service-principal/m-p/5139358#M15589 ... View more