Forum Discussion

TheKevin's avatar
TheKevin
Occasional Reader
Apr 02, 2026

Microsoft Graph: Private channel SharePoint site URL naming appears to have changed

πŸ“„ Question

We are creating private channels using the Microsoft Graph API:

POST https://graph.microsoft.com/v1.0/teams/{team-id}/channels

 

With the following payload:

{ "@odata.type": "#microsoft.graph.channel", 
"displayName": "Project-Channel-001", "description": "Sample private channel for testing", "membershipType": "private", "members": [ { "@odata.type": "#microsoft.graph.aadUserConversationMember", "******@odata.bind": "https://graph.microsoft.com/v1.0/users/{user-id}", "roles": ["owner"] } ] }

πŸ” Observed Behavior

When the private channel is created, the associated SharePoint site is provisioned automatically (as expected).

However, the URL format appears to have changed.

Previously observed behavior:

https://{tenant}.sharepoint.com/sites/ProjectTeamURL-Project-Channel-001

Current behavior:

https://{tenant}.sharepoint.com/sites/ProjectTeamName-Project-Channel-001

❗ Impact

This change introduces several issues:

  • Breaks deterministic URL generation logic
  • Produces longer and less predictable URLs
  • Introduces dependency on display name, which is mutable and may contain unexpected characters
  • Impacts existing automation and integrations relying on the previous pattern

❓ Questions

  1. Has there been a recent change in how SharePoint site URLs are generated for private channels?
  2. Is this behavior intentional and documented, or a regression?
  3. Is there any way (via Graph or otherwise) to:
    • Control the generated SharePoint site URL, or
    • Retrieve the final site URL deterministically without relying on pattern assumptions?
  4. Is the previous {ParentTeamUrl}-{ChannelName} format still expected in some scenarios, or has it been deprecated?

πŸ§ͺ Additional Notes

  • This behavior is observed when creating channels via Microsoft Graph (v1.0)
  • The issue is reproducible across multiple test scenarios

πŸ™ Any clarification from Microsoft or others encountering this would be appreciated.

No RepliesBe the first to reply