starred/netbox
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/netbox-community/netbox.git synced 2026-01-11 21:10:29 +01:00
Code Issues 273 Packages Projects Releases 10 Wiki Activity

Allow Tags to be displayed in a specific order #10397

New Issue
Closed
opened 2025-12-29 21:30:54 +01:00 by adam · 8 comments
adam commented 2025-12-29 21:30:54 +01:00
Owner
Copy Link

Originally created by @BrunoBlanes on GitHub (Oct 23, 2024).

Originally assigned to: @jnovinger on GitHub.

NetBox version

v4.1.0

Feature type

New functionality

Triage priority

N/A

Proposed functionality

Add an integer Index field to the Tag object definition which can be used by the frontend to order tags first by Index, then alphabetically when displaying them.

  • Index ordering should be from lowest to highest value, where the lowest value has the highest priority and therefore it is displayed before any other tags
  • Some sort of hard limit, e.g. -128 to 128, could be implemented for optimization
  • The default index value must be zero
  • For tags with the same index, alphabetical sorting should be the default behavior. This is to ensure that, when migrating to this implementation existing behavior is preserved.

Use case

There are innumerous use cases for tags, one such case is the ability to give information about an object such as a virtual machine:

NETPY CLT01 VM108 APCHE

 |     |      |      |_ Gives a clear visual hint of the service running in this machine
 |     |      |________ Shows the virtual machine name according to our virtualization system
 |     |_______________ Identifies the cluster where this machine belongs to
 |_____________________ Identifies the tenant

It would be lovely to display the four tags in the aforementioned order, since that is the formal name of this object and everywhere in our internal processes and documents, we refer to this virtual machine as NETPY-CLT01-VM108-APCHE.

Having the ability to sort tags when displaying objects in Netbox will allow for further customization and integration with other systems that rely on tags for looking up objects.

Database changes

A new integer column for the Tag table definition.

External dependencies

None that I am aware of.

Originally created by @BrunoBlanes on GitHub (Oct 23, 2024). Originally assigned to: @jnovinger on GitHub. ### NetBox version v4.1.0 ### Feature type New functionality ### Triage priority N/A ### Proposed functionality Add an integer `Index` field to the `Tag` object definition which can be used by the frontend to order tags first by `Index`, then alphabetically when displaying them. - `Index` ordering should be from lowest to highest value, where the lowest value has the highest priority and therefore it is displayed before any other tags - Some sort of hard limit, e.g. `-128` to `128`, could be implemented for optimization - The default index value must be zero - **For tags with the same index, alphabetical sorting should be the default behavior.** This is to ensure that, when migrating to this implementation existing behavior is preserved. ### Use case There are innumerous use cases for tags, one such case is the ability to give information about an object such as a virtual machine: `NETPY` `CLT01` `VM108` `APCHE` ``` | | | |_ Gives a clear visual hint of the service running in this machine | | |________ Shows the virtual machine name according to our virtualization system | |_______________ Identifies the cluster where this machine belongs to |_____________________ Identifies the tenant ``` It would be lovely to display the four tags in the aforementioned order, since that is the formal name of this object and everywhere in our internal processes and documents, we refer to this virtual machine as `NETPY-CLT01-VM108-APCHE`. Having the ability to sort tags when displaying objects in Netbox will allow for further customization and integration with other systems that rely on tags for looking up objects. ### Database changes A new `integer` column for the `Tag` table definition. ### External dependencies None that I am aware of.
adam closed this issue 2025-12-29 21:30:54 +01:00
adam commented 2025-12-29 21:30:55 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@Mailstorm-ctrl commented on GitHub (Oct 23, 2024):

So if you want a standardized tag order to represent a name....why not just make that the name of whatever object you are naming? You can make custom validators that make it so names conform to a regex based on available attributes. For instance, part of our naming is <region><sitecode> which gets dynamically pulled based on the already existing attributes of the object. If the attributes weren't there, it would still be possible to write a custom validation that meets your needs.

For specifically about your VM example...cluster information already exist. In fact you can't make a VM without a cluster and a cluster can be assigned a tenant and a site.

@Mailstorm-ctrl commented on GitHub (Oct 23, 2024): So if you want a standardized tag order to represent a name....why not just make that the name of whatever object you are naming? You can make custom validators that make it so names conform to a regex based on available attributes. For instance, part of our naming is `<region><sitecode>` which gets dynamically pulled based on the already existing attributes of the object. If the attributes weren't there, it would still be possible to write a custom validation that meets your needs. For specifically about your VM example...cluster information already exist. In fact you can't make a VM without a cluster and a cluster can be assigned a tenant and a site.
adam commented 2025-12-29 21:30:55 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@BrunoBlanes commented on GitHub (Oct 24, 2024):

So if you want a standardized tag order to represent a name....why not just make that the name of whatever object you are naming?

Because not all objects have names, for instance I could want to do this to an IP address.

For specifically about your VM example...cluster information already exist. In fact you can't make a VM without a cluster and a cluster can be assigned a tenant and a site.

You can actually make a VM without a cluster, it is not a requirement.

I don't want you to get attached to the naming possibilities here, this functionality can be used for many other use cases.

@BrunoBlanes commented on GitHub (Oct 24, 2024): > So if you want a standardized tag order to represent a name....why not just make that the name of whatever object you are naming? Because not all objects have names, for instance I could want to do this to an IP address. > For specifically about your VM example...cluster information already exist. In fact you can't make a VM without a cluster and a cluster can be assigned a tenant and a site. You can actually make a VM without a cluster, it is not a requirement. I don't want you to get attached to the _naming_ possibilities here, this functionality can be used for many other use cases.
adam commented 2025-12-29 21:30:56 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@Mailstorm-ctrl commented on GitHub (Oct 24, 2024):

I don't want you to get attached to the naming possibilities here, this functionality can be used for many other use cases.

Ultimately it's the netbox team decides which I am not. But as feedback this doesn't seem like a useful addition to tags and is fairly niche and can be accomplished with other means. It's also the only example you've given so hard to think of other use-cases.

But for the index...would it be set on the tag model or within the model you are apply the tag to? For example if I have tag NETPY, am I setting the index when I initially make the tag (thus it's a "global" index) or is it set at the model where tag NETPY could have an index of 10 on one object but 15 on another? I would think (if implemented), it would make sense just to be able to re-arrange tags within the form to your desired order.

You can actually make a VM without a cluster, it is not a requirement.
Turns out this is half true. I always thought it was a requirement but you need a site OR a cluster. I just saw the position of the error was under cluster and assumed it was wanting a cluster.

@Mailstorm-ctrl commented on GitHub (Oct 24, 2024): > I don't want you to get attached to the _naming_ possibilities here, this functionality can be used for many other use cases. Ultimately it's the netbox team decides which I am not. But as feedback this doesn't seem like a useful addition to tags and is fairly niche and can be accomplished with other means. It's also the only example you've given so hard to think of other use-cases. But for the index...would it be set on the tag model or within the model you are apply the tag to? For example if I have tag `NETPY`, am I setting the index when I initially make the tag (thus it's a "global" index) or is it set at the model where tag `NETPY` could have an index of 10 on one object but 15 on another? I would think (if implemented), it would make sense just to be able to re-arrange tags within the form to your desired order. > You can actually make a VM without a cluster, it is not a requirement. Turns out this is half true. I always thought it was a requirement but you need a site OR a cluster. I just saw the position of the error was under cluster and assumed it was wanting a cluster.
adam commented 2025-12-29 21:30:56 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@BrunoBlanes commented on GitHub (Oct 24, 2024):

But for the index...would it be set on the tag model or within the model you are apply the tag to?

The proposal is for it to be added to the tag model.

@BrunoBlanes commented on GitHub (Oct 24, 2024): > But for the index...would it be set on the tag model or within the model you are apply the tag to? The proposal is for it to be added to the tag model.
adam commented 2025-12-29 21:30:56 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@chris240189 commented on GitHub (Oct 24, 2024):

So pretty much like the "display weight" of custom fields, just to get some sorting.

@chris240189 commented on GitHub (Oct 24, 2024): So pretty much like the "display weight" of custom fields, just to get some sorting.
adam commented 2025-12-29 21:30:57 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@BrunoBlanes commented on GitHub (Oct 24, 2024):

So pretty much like the "display weight" of custom fields, just to get some sorting.

Well when you put it like that...

@BrunoBlanes commented on GitHub (Oct 24, 2024): > So pretty much like the "display weight" of custom fields, just to get some sorting. Well when you put it like that...
adam commented 2025-12-29 21:30:57 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Feb 6, 2025):

There's a weight field for Prefix/VLAN roles as well, which is likewise used to effect arbitrary ordering. I think we could do that for tags.

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Feb 6, 2025): There's a `weight` field for Prefix/VLAN roles as well, which is likewise used to effect arbitrary ordering. I think we could do that for tags.
adam commented 2025-12-29 21:30:57 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jnovinger commented on GitHub (Mar 19, 2025):

Fixed in #18930

@jnovinger commented on GitHub (Mar 19, 2025): Fixed in #18930
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: medium netbox status: accepted status: backlog 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#10397
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?