I took the time to chat about that to @ddyett and his instructions are to major rev same thing for dotnet @andrueastman

Thanks for the heads up @baywet

@ramsessanchez would you mind bumping the major version for this one please?

@baywet, @ramsessanchez
I just noticed that the diff for this PR is may not be consistent with the metadata change.
According to the commit today on the metadata here the targetApps is a newly added action (This is consistent with the .net generation).
Any chance this is what we expect?

Thanks for the additional information @andrueastman

If we compare the previous full metadata file with the current one we can see that 2 things happened:

• a new targetApps action on bound to targetedManagedAppProtection was added
• a new targetedManagedAppGroupType parameter was added to the targetApps action bound to targetedManagedAppConfiguration

Because targetedManagedAppProtection inherits from managedAppProtection and managedAppProtection already had an action on it, we were generating the request builders and parameter sets for targetedManagedAppProtection as well. (that might only have worked if people were using OData Cast, if the API supports OData cast)
Now that a new action is defined with more precision on the child type, the generation process updated the generated request builder and parameter set.

You can have a look at the pkgdiff, specially at the following files

• diffs/com/microsoft/graph/requests/TargetedManagedAppProtectionRequestBuilder.class-diff.html
• diffs/com/microsoft/graph/requests/IosManagedAppProtectionRequestBuilder.class-diff.html
• (and others)

Now, the chances of anyone hitting these breaking changes are low, but it's still technically a breaking change for Java. And it might be for dotnet, depending on whether or not dotnet generates actions request builders inherited from parent types. Hence the major bump on Java/

@ramsessanchez we should be good to merge and release whenever you have time :)