Add SharePoint Online app+user-only note to entitlement management resource APIs

[jconley76]

Adds a note to two entitlement management API reference topics explaining that SharePoint Online resource flows are supported only with delegated (app+user) permissions, and pointing app-only callers to sites: getAllSites for equivalent site information.

Files changed

• api-reference/v1.0/api/accesspackagecatalog-list-resources.md
• api-reference/beta/api/accesspackageresourceenvironment-get.md

The note is placed after the permissions/RBAC includes and before the HTTP request section, so the limitation sits next to the permissions guidance it applies to. ms.date was updated on both files.

No schema change, so no changelog or What's New entry is included.

[learn-build-service-prod]

Learn Build status updates of commit 47affb0:

✅ Validation status: passed

File	Status	Preview URL	Details
api-reference/beta/api/accesspackageresourceenvironment-get.md	✅Succeeded
api-reference/v1.0/api/accesspackagecatalog-list-resources.md	✅Succeeded

For more details, please refer to the build report.

[Jarbas Horst (JarbasHorst)]

Hello jconley76, for consistency with the Microsoft Graph standards, please update the note.

Suggested change

	> SharePoint Online resource environments are returned only when this API is called with delegated (app+user) permissions. This scenario isn't supported with application-only permissions. To retrieve SharePoint site information in an app-only context, use the [sites: getAllSites](site-getallsites.md) API, which returns equivalent site information.
	> SharePoint Online resource environments are returned only when this API is called with delegated permissions. This scenario isn't supported with application permissions. To retrieve SharePoint site information using application permissions, use the [sites: getAllSites](../api/site-getallsites.md) API, which returns equivalent site information.

[jconley76]

Applied, thanks - updated to the standard delegated/application permissions wording and the ../api/site-getallsites.md link.

[Jarbas Horst (JarbasHorst)]

Hello jconley76, for consistency with the Microsoft Graph standards, please update the note.

Suggested change

	> SharePoint Online resources are returned only when this API is called with delegated (app+user) permissions. This scenario isn't supported with application-only permissions. To retrieve SharePoint site information in an app-only context, use the [sites: getAllSites](site-getallsites.md) API, which returns equivalent site information.
	> SharePoint Online resource environments are returned only when this API is called with delegated permissions. This scenario isn't supported with application permissions. To retrieve SharePoint site information using application permissions, use the [sites: getAllSites](../api/site-getallsites.md) API, which returns equivalent site information.

[jconley76]

Applied, thanks. One tweak: I kept "resources" rather than "resource environments" here, since this page lists accessPackageResource objects. Wording and link otherwise match your suggestion.

[Jarbas Horst (JarbasHorst)]

#sign-off

[learn-build-service-prod]

Learn Build status updates of commit c86c16c:

✅ Validation status: passed

File	Status	Preview URL	Details
api-reference/beta/api/accesspackageresourceenvironment-get.md	✅Succeeded
api-reference/v1.0/api/accesspackagecatalog-list-resources.md	✅Succeeded

For more details, please refer to the build report.

[learn-build-service-prod]

Learn Build status updates of commit 9171f5b:

✅ Validation status: passed

File	Status	Preview URL	Details
api-reference/beta/api/accesspackageresourceenvironment-get.md	✅Succeeded
api-reference/v1.0/api/accesspackagecatalog-list-resources.md	✅Succeeded

For more details, please refer to the build report.

[Regan Downer (v-regandowner)]

Danipocket - This looks like the type of PR that should be closed and moved to the private repository, correct?

Thanks!

[Jarbas Horst (JarbasHorst)]

Danipocket - This looks like the type of PR that should be closed and moved to the private repository, correct?

Thanks!

Same also here: #10007

[jconley76]

Danipocket Regan Downer (@v-regandowner) - following up on the question about moving this to the private repository. Is that still the plan, or is this OK to merge here?

Current status:

• Jarbas Horst (@JarbasHorst) signed off on 7/31 after I applied the review feedback
• All checks are green and the PR is mergeable with no conflicts
• Latest commit also updates the beta resource environments note to point app-only callers at GET /sites?$filter=siteCollection/root ne null instead of getAllSites, since an ELM resource environment corresponds to a SharePoint root site

Happy to close and re-file privately if that's the right path - just let me know which way to go so this doesn't keep sitting.

[Shannon Leavitt (ShannonLeavitt)]

jconley76 - Thank you for your contribution. However, internal contributors need to submit PRs through the private repo (microsoft-graph-docs). This enables build validation, Policheck, staged content review, and contributor sign-off before publishing. For more details, see the MSec Docs Self-Serve Playbook.

@MicrosoftDocs/public-repo-pr-review-team