Client Side Auto Labelling Not Working
Hi All, I have configured some rules for client-side auto labelling, sometimes it works, sometimes it does not. It is supposed to upgrade the documents to Protected B. Is anyone else experiencing this or should i be making changes to the configurations? Please see attached.
MS Purview Data Quality Report/Dashboard
Hi Everyone, I have created two governance domain in MS Purview, added data products, data assets and implemented data quality rules in each domain with different users as owner. For an example there are two governance domain called 'Transport' and 'Education' with different set of users and we provided 'Data Heath Reader' role access to each users to access data quality dashboard. The issue was each users can able to see data quality report for both governance domain. Could you please help me how can we restrict the users at domain level in Data quality dashboard. For eg: 'User A' should able to see only dashboard for 'Transport' domain and 'User B' should have access only 'Education' domain. Kindly let me know how can we restrict the data quality dashboard access at domain level. Regards, BanuMurali
Microsoft Purview Data Quality Report "Not-Available Data"
Hello! I'm working with data quality of Microsoft Purview. I have created a "Test Domain" and have data quality on its data assets. I have decided to delete the quality data as well as deleting the domain. It's been a week and the DQ Report is still like this. I think this comes from the deleted Test Domain. It affects the score in the report. Is there any way to remove the Not-Available Data? Thanks in advance!
Approvals for new Subscribers to a data product
One of our end users had recently requested for approvals for a data product. The request automatically when to their manager who has accepted. The next step is the Privacy role. Although the manager has accepted and it should now go to the next person for approval, the request page is showing as no response from the boss. Has anyone experienced the same and what's the solution please? ThanksLineage Limitation on Wide Power BI Semantic Models & Built-in Classification Rule Sets
Hello everyone, I’m evaluating the new Microsoft Purview Governance Portal for our finance data governance needs. Previously with the Azure Purview classic version we had a couple of blocking issues such as it failed to scan wide semantic models. But now we're migrating to Fabric and we'd like to try the new Microsoft Purview Governance Portal. I’d appreciate any insights or confirmation from the product team or the community. Lineage Limitation on Wide Power BI Semantic Models Background: When we first ran the Purview Data Map Scanner against our finance semantic model, it failed once the total column count across all tables exceeded roughly 500 columns. In our case, a single SAP table alone has about 450 columns—so the scan wouldn’t complete, and we couldn’t capture any lineage. Questions: Has Purview removed or raised any “hidden” column-count limits for Power BI semantic models? Is there any official documentation on maximum supported column counts (e.g. 200, 500, or otherwise)? Are there recommended workarounds for very wide models—such as splitting into sub-datasets, using incremental scans, etc. to get full lineage? 2. Built-in Classification Rule Sets Background: Purview ships with a set of Microsoft-provided “Sensitive Information Types” that appear in every scan rule set. In many of our scans these defaults aren’t needed, and they clutter the results. Questions: Can we delete or permanently disable the built-in classification rules? If not, what’s the best way to ensure they’re not applied during a full scan? Are there any APIs or PowerShell commands that let us automate the exclusion of Microsoft’s defaults from our scan rule sets? Thank you in advance for any pointers, documentation links, or best-practice advice!Microsoft Compliance Assessment issues - ASD L1
Hi, We are using Microsoft Compliance Assessments in Microsoft Purview In the Microsoft Compliance Manager we have enabled the ASD Essentials Level 1 assessment Under the Microsoft Actions There are 2 actions, one is: Malicious Code Protection - Periodic and Real-Time Scans (SI-0116) The issue that currently the testing status is 'failed low risk' , but the testing status has the date tested as Monday Sep 30 2024, well before we opened the assessment, also with notes that are completely irrelevant to this client and certainly not something we have put in. The information in there is quite long, I can provide a txt file with this information I have checked the documentation and we have implemented the required security configuration With these items set the way they are we have no way to complete the assessmentSharing: PDF readers that support Purview labels
As I was researching on Adobe Acrobat reader and Sensitivity labels, I decided to check if the common alternative PDF readers out there are able to support Purview MIP Sensitivity labels. There is already a published documentation on this for SharePoint-Compatible PDF readers that supports Microsoft IRM: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/purview/sp-compatible-pdf-readers-for-irm (last updated Nov-2023) but I wanted to see if these same PDF readers supports the ability for end-users to use/ select labels similar to that of Adobe Acrobat As of 11-June-2025; atleast one of them clearly do: Nitro PDF: Yes. Documentation shows that users can see and use the sensitivity labels. PDF -X.change Editor: Yes. Documentation show that users can see and use the sensitivity labels. (check the official website, I can't hyperlink it because the site is blocked. FOX PDF editor: No. Documentation only states RMS and not clear if it show Purview labels. This is for F.O.X.I.T editor (spelled without the ".") but for some reason there is a community ban on that word and it won't allow me to post the full name PDFescape: No. Sumatra PDF: No Okular: No If there are other PDF readers that I've missed, I encourage you list it down in the comment below. Would love to grow this list.
