Unable to get a Special Folder by name using the GraphServiceClient.

[MaxxDelusional]

Problem:

According to the docs, the request for a special folder should be GET /me/drive/special/{name}, however, there is no way to construct this path using the Graph SDK.

What I tried:

This does not work, because DriveRequestBuilder does not contain a definition for Special.

var result = await graphClient.Me.Drive.Special["approot"].GetAsync();

This will not work, because the slash will become url encoded.

var result = await graphClient.Me.Drives["special/approot"].GetAsync();

The C# example in the docs say to do this.

var result = await graphClient.Drives["{drive-id}"].Special["{driveItem-id}"].GetAsync();

But there is no drive-id to specify. Attempting to use null or empty string as the drive id created an invalid request url.

BaseGraphServiceClient does not contain a DriveRequestBuilder so we can't do something like this.

var result = graphClient.Drive.Special["approot"].GetAsync();

Potential Workaround:

The only way I have found to get the drive is by specifying the entire url, but clearly this is not ideal.

var result = await graphClient.Me.Drive
    .WithUrl("https://graph.microsoft.com/v1.0/drive/special/approot")
    .GetAsync();

Side Question: Is there a way to get the baseUrl from an instance of GraphServiceClient? Or any way to build a url with a relative path?

Suggestion:

Add SpecialRequestBuilder to DriveRequestBuilder or add handling for null drive-id in DrivesRequestBuilder.

The docs should also be updated, as the current C# example doesn't work. (You shouldn't need a drive-id, but the docs say to specify one).

[andrueastman]

Thanks for raising this @MaxxDelusional

Aside from the workaround suggested, you can pull in the drive Id as below.

            var myDrive = await graphClient.Me.Drive.GetAsync();
            var result = await graphClient.Drives[myDrive.Id].Special["approot"].GetAsync();

This is covered in a section of the docs at the link as to why the requestbuilders are not present due to large API surface increasing the SDK to a very large size.

https://github.com/microsoftgraph/msgraph-sdk-dotnet/blob/main/docs/upgrade-to-v5.md#drive-item-paths

[MaxxDelusional]

It seems weird to make an extra call to the Graph API, just to grab a value that isn't actually needed, but I understand the desire to keep the SDK as small as possible.

If there was a way to provide a relative url to the WithUrl method, that would be ideal.

I tried this, but it's not supported.

var result = await graphClient.Me.Drive
    .WithUrl("{+baseurl}/drive/special/approot")
    .GetAsync();

[andrueastman]

If there was a way to provide a relative url to the WithUrl method, that would be ideal.

At the moment you can't pass a relative url. You can however use the BaseUrl property in the request adapter to make a request as below.

var result = await graphClient.Me.Drive
    .WithUrl($"{graphClient.RequestAdapter.BaseUrl}/drive/special/approot")
    .GetAsync();

[MaxxDelusional]

This is flag as requiring my feedback.

In my opinion, I still feel the Graph Client should be able to make a one-to-one call with the Graph API. But it's really up to the Graph team to decide if they want to support it or not.

[pekspro]

Recently I have had some random issue with this code:

var driveItem = await graphClient.Me.Drive.GetAsync().ConfigureAwait(false);
string driveId = driveItem!.Id!;

This have given me an permission error. In the documentation it says that Files.Read scope is required. I'm only requesting Files.ReadWrite.AppFolder because my application shouldn't need more permissions.

It feels like this is something that has started recently. And I don't always get this error. But I had this problem while I was debugging, and changed to:

var result = await graphClient.Me.Drive
    .WithUrl($"{graphClient.RequestAdapter.BaseUrl}/drive/special/approot")
    .GetAsync();

string driveId = result!.Id!.Split("!")[0];

This only requires the Files.ReadWrite.AppFolder scope. My application worked fine after this change.

Then I tried to old code again, and then it started to worked. And it continued to work even if the reinstalled the application.

Either way, I also wished it was easier to access special folders.