docs: Note that Power BI Report Builder is not supported

[MazterQyou]

Check List

• Tests have been run in packages where changes have been made if available
• Linter has been run for changed code
• Tests for the changes have been added if not covered yet
• Docs have been added / updated if required

Description of Changes Made

This PR updates the Power BI integration page to state that Power BI Report Builder is not supported.

[mintlify]

Preview deployment for your docs. Learn more about Mintlify Previews.

Project	Status	Preview	Updated
cubed3	🟢 Ready	View Preview	Sep 9, 2026, 4:35 PM

💡 Tip: Enable Automations to automatically generate PRs for you.

[claude]

Claude finished @MazterQyou's task in 43s —— View job

---

Review complete — looks good to merge; 0 high, 0 medium, 1 low

Full review

Todos

• Gather context (read PR diff, changed file, repo + docs CLAUDE.md)
• Classify request (code review — no implementation requested)
• Review the docs change
• Check for stale/duplicate review threads (none existed)
• Post review

Summary

A 3-line docs-only change to docs-mintlify/docs/integrations/power-bi/index.mdx: a sentence in the intro, a row in the authentication methods table, and a link reference definition.

Everything checks out against docs-mintlify/CLAUDE.md:

• Edits an existing page rather than creating a new one, and stays concise — exactly the preferred pattern.
• Uses the file's existing reference-style link convention ([link-powerbi-report-builder]), and the definition is inserted in the correct alphabetical slot among the link-* refs at line 90.
• The link target (learn.microsoft.com/.../report-builder-power-bi) is the canonical Microsoft page for Report Builder.
• Table row matches the surrounding 🟢/🟡 status-emoji convention with 🔴 for unsupported.
• No naming-convention violations, no images/binaries, no docs.json change needed (existing page).

Nothing security-, performance-, or test-related applies to a docs-copy change. No comment-hygiene concerns.

Findings

Low — scope of the "not supported" claim (inline comment, line 51)

The intro sentence (line 11) states the limitation unconditionally, while the new table row lives inside the DAX-API-specific Authentication methods table. If the limitation is DAX-only, line 11 overstates it; if it's global, the row is in a narrower section than the claim. Also, a row whose Authentication cell is — is answering "is this app supported" rather than "which auth method" — arguably redundant with line 11. Non-blocking; a judgment call for the author, who knows which API surface the limitation actually applies to.

· Branch: [`docs/powerbi-report-builder`](https://github.com/cube-js/cube/tree/docs/powerbi-report-builder)

[claude]

Scope nit: this row lands in the Authentication methods table under "Connect to the DAX API", but the intro sentence at line 11 states Report Builder is unsupported for Cube generally (both DAX API and SQL API paths). Two small consequences:

• A row with — in an Authentication column is really answering "which applications are supported", not "which auth method to use" — a reader scanning for auth guidance gets a non-answer.
• If the limitation is DAX-API-specific (i.e. Report Builder can still reach Cube over the SQL API as a Postgres source), line 11 overstates it; if it's global, the table row understates the reach by living in a DAX-only section.

Since line 11 already says it plainly, the table row is arguably redundant. If you want to keep both, worth making the intro sentence explicit about which API(s) it covers.