Skip to content

[BUG] bulk-export errors with "[NotSupported] Only supported for Lakehouse/Files" #287

Open

Description

Bug Description

When attempting to do a bulk export of items from any workspace or folder I get the error

"x bulk-export: [NotSupported] Only supported for Lakehouse/Files"

The error is actually regarding the output filepath parameter

fab bulk-export <workspace>/<folder> -o ./ --recursive

.. fails

fab bulk-export <workspace>/<folder> -o ./temp --recursive

.. succeeds.

fabric-cli version

1.7.0

Python version

Python 3.12.0

Operating System

Windows

CLI Mode

Command line mode

Authentication Method

Interactive browser login

Steps to Reproduce

  1. Go to a local temporary folder.
  2. Command

fab bulk-export / -o ./ --recursive

(redacted)

Expected Behavior

Users would reasonably assume the path resolution should work for any valid filesystem path

Actual Behavior

Cli immediately errors with
"x bulk-export: [NotSupported] Only supported for Lakehouse/Files"

Bulk export aborts with no items exported.

Additional Context

No response

Possible Solution

Either the path resolver needs updating to allow os-aware filepath formats, or the docs need to be more explicit about the path requirements

Activity

  1. microsoft-github-policy-service commented on Sep 11, 2026

    @microsoft-github-policy-service

    Thank you for submitting this issue, Reuben Anderson (@reubster).
    A member of the Fabric CLI team will review your submission and provide feedback shortly.

  2. rksharma-owg commented on Sep 12, 2026

    @rksharma-owg

    I’d like to work on this. I reproduced the failure in the export-path resolver and bulk-export preconditions on current main (b7af89b), using Python 3.12 on macOS with a synthetic tenant context and existing local directories; no live Fabric export was run.

    Both . and ./ resolve successfully to the current Fabric context, so get_export_path never reaches its local-path fallback and raises the Lakehouse/Files error. An existing ./temp directory reaches the fallback and succeeds.

    Would you welcome a bulk-export-specific local-directory fix with regression tests for current-directory paths, invalid destinations, and nonempty-directory confirmation? Since bulk export already requires a local destination, I’d keep shared OneLake path precedence unchanged. If that approach fits, could this issue be marked help wanted? I’ll wait for team acknowledgment before implementation.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

No one assigned

    Type

    No type

    Projects

    No projects

      Milestone

      No milestone

      Relationships

      None yet

      Development

      No branches or pull requests

      Issue actions