starred/netbox
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/netbox-community/netbox.git synced 2026-01-13 22:03:32 +01:00
Code Issues 273 Packages Projects Releases 10 Wiki Activity

Allow Platforms with Same Name for Different Manufacturers #10204

New Issue
Closed
opened 2025-12-29 21:28:17 +01:00 by adam · 8 comments
adam commented 2025-12-29 21:28:17 +01:00
Owner
Copy Link

Originally created by @mjoshionemind on GitHub (Sep 9, 2024).

Originally assigned to: @jeremystretch on GitHub.

NetBox version

v4.0.7

Feature type

Change to existing functionality

Proposed functionality

In the Platform model, the system raises a validation error when trying to create a Platform with the same name even if the associated Manufacturer is different. This is problematic because two manufacturers can produce platforms with the same name. The system should allow Platform records with the same name if they are associated with different Manufacturers.

Use case

The Platform name should only be enforced as unique within a Manufacturer. This allows two platforms with the same name but belonging to different manufacturers to be created.

Steps to Reproduce:

Create a Manufacturer (e.g., Manufacturer A).
Create a Platform named "Test Platform" under Manufacturer A.
Create another Manufacturer (e.g., Manufacturer B).
Attempt to create another Platform named "Test Platform" under Manufacturer B.

Database changes

No response

External dependencies

No response

Originally created by @mjoshionemind on GitHub (Sep 9, 2024). Originally assigned to: @jeremystretch on GitHub. ### NetBox version v4.0.7 ### Feature type Change to existing functionality ### Proposed functionality In the Platform model, the system raises a validation error when trying to create a Platform with the same name even if the associated Manufacturer is different. This is problematic because two manufacturers can produce platforms with the same name. The system should allow Platform records with the same name if they are associated with different Manufacturers. ### Use case The Platform name should only be enforced as unique within a Manufacturer. This allows two platforms with the same name but belonging to different manufacturers to be created. **Steps to Reproduce**: Create a Manufacturer (e.g., Manufacturer A). Create a Platform named "Test Platform" under Manufacturer A. Create another Manufacturer (e.g., Manufacturer B). Attempt to create another Platform named "Test Platform" under Manufacturer B. ### Database changes _No response_ ### External dependencies _No response_
adam added the status: acceptedtype: featurecomplexity: low labels 2025-12-29 21:28:17 +01:00
adam closed this issue 2025-12-29 21:28:17 +01:00
adam commented 2025-12-29 21:28:18 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@ghost commented on GitHub (Sep 9, 2024):

Cisco IOS and Apple IOS come to mind.

@ghost commented on GitHub (Sep 9, 2024): Cisco IOS and Apple IOS come to mind.
adam commented 2025-12-29 21:28:18 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@abhi1693 commented on GitHub (Sep 18, 2024):

I can implement this if selected. @arthanson

@abhi1693 commented on GitHub (Sep 18, 2024): I can implement this if selected. @arthanson
adam commented 2025-12-29 21:28:18 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Jan 10, 2025):

We can support this, but it will require tweaking the device & VM import forms to also filter by manufacturer when specifying a device/VM platform. (Otherwise, attempting to import a platform referenced by name only may fail.)

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Jan 10, 2025): We can support this, but it will require tweaking the device & VM import forms to also filter by manufacturer when specifying a device/VM platform. (Otherwise, attempting to import a platform referenced by name only may fail.)
adam commented 2025-12-29 21:28:19 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@arthanson commented on GitHub (Feb 13, 2025):

@abhi1693 would you still be open to working on this, for 4.3 release?

@arthanson commented on GitHub (Feb 13, 2025): @abhi1693 would you still be open to working on this, for 4.3 release?
adam commented 2025-12-29 21:28:19 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@abhi1693 commented on GitHub (Feb 13, 2025):

Yes

@abhi1693 commented on GitHub (Feb 13, 2025): Yes
adam commented 2025-12-29 21:28:19 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@arthanson commented on GitHub (Feb 13, 2025):

Assigned it to you @abhi1693 Thanks!

@arthanson commented on GitHub (Feb 13, 2025): Assigned it to you @abhi1693 Thanks!
adam commented 2025-12-29 21:28:19 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@arthanson commented on GitHub (Apr 10, 2025):

This will not make the cutoff for 4.3 so will need to go into 4.4

@arthanson commented on GitHub (Apr 10, 2025): This will not make the cutoff for 4.3 so will need to go into 4.4
adam commented 2025-12-29 21:28:20 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@begunfx commented on GitHub (Jun 6, 2025):

Another use case is Wear OS - Samsung AND Google have devices for this platform.

@begunfx commented on GitHub (Jun 6, 2025): Another use case is Wear OS - Samsung AND Google have devices for this platform.
Sign in to join this conversation.
No Branch/Tag Specified
Branches Tags
Labels
Clear labels
beta
breaking change
complexity: high
complexity: low
complexity: medium
needs milestone
netbox
pending closure
plugin candidate
pull-request
Mirrored from GitHub Pull Request
 severity: high
severity: low
severity: medium
status: accepted
status: backlog
status: blocked
status: duplicate
status: needs owner
status: needs triage
status: revisions needed
status: under review
topic: GraphQL
topic: Internationalization
topic: OpenAPI
topic: UI/UX
topic: cabling
topic: event rules
topic: htmx navigation
topic: industrialization
topic: migrations
topic: plugins
topic: scripts
topic: templating
topic: testing
type: bug
type: deprecation
type: documentation
type: feature
type: housekeeping
type: translation
No Label complexity: low status: accepted type: feature
Milestone
No items
No Milestone
Projects
Clear projects
No project
Assignees
Clear assignees
adam
No Assignees
1 Participants
Notifications
Due Date
No due date set.
Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference: starred/netbox#10204
Delete Branch "%!s()"

Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?