Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

TeamsGroupPolicyAssignment TeamsModule bug in getting priority #5527

Open
sandrola opened this issue Dec 9, 2024 · 2 comments · May be fixed by #5544
Open

TeamsGroupPolicyAssignment TeamsModule bug in getting priority #5527

sandrola opened this issue Dec 9, 2024 · 2 comments · May be fixed by #5544

Comments

@sandrola
Copy link
Contributor

sandrola commented Dec 9, 2024

Description of the issue

A bug in Teams Module get different priority when used with / without attribute.
Get-CsGroupPolicyAssignment output can differ from Get-CsGroupPolicyAssignment -GroupId $Group.Id -PolicyType $PolicyType output.

Solution:
Use always Get-CsGroupPolicyAssignment and search for GroupId / PolicyType in a Where clause.

Microsoft 365 DSC Version

V1.24.1204.1

Which workloads are affected

Teams

The DSC configuration

n/a

Verbose logs showing the problem

Environment Information + PowerShell Version

@sandrola sandrola linked a pull request Dec 12, 2024 that will close this issue
7 tasks
@NikCharlebois
Copy link
Collaborator

This will have a major impact on the performance of the resource. I understand we don't have much of a choice since this appears to be a bug with the Teams PowerShell module. It will loop in the appropriate team for review. Can you provide additional examples with outputs to clearly show the bug? Thanks

@sandrola
Copy link
Contributor Author

Image
The printscreen show the 'Rank' differences if the same policy on the same group is retrived with the different method.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants