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

Add a new IP address -> Property Interface -> Filter Direct via Device Name #10654

New Issue
Closed
opened 2025-12-29 21:34:12 +01:00 by adam · 4 comments
adam commented 2025-12-29 21:34:12 +01:00
Owner
Copy Link

Originally created by @LHBL2003 on GitHub (Jan 16, 2025).

NetBox version

V4.2.0

Feature type

Change to existing functionality

Triage priority

N/A

Proposed functionality

When creating an IP address in the IPAM, make it possible to search not only directly for the interface name but also for the device name in the “Interfaces” drop-down field.

image

image

This is already possible for devices in the DowpDown field “Device Type”.
image

Use case

Interface names are often used thousands of times. Without filtering on the device name, you always have to use the filter function to the right of the drop-down field. However, if you could filter the device name directly, this would mean a reduction in the daily workload.

Database changes

No response

External dependencies

No response

Originally created by @LHBL2003 on GitHub (Jan 16, 2025). ### NetBox version V4.2.0 ### Feature type Change to existing functionality ### Triage priority N/A ### Proposed functionality When creating an IP address in the IPAM, make it possible to search not only directly for the interface name but also for the device name in the “Interfaces” drop-down field. ![image](https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/2b53abfc-60a6-4c1d-bec2-0ce44deb2e3d) ![image](https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/35744370-9da1-44c1-ba13-6c3559662fe5) This is already possible for devices in the DowpDown field “Device Type”. ![image](https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/d37a69d3-ccb6-4230-ba5d-0c5bdd83a5fd) ### Use case Interface names are often used thousands of times. Without filtering on the device name, you always have to use the filter function to the right of the drop-down field. However, if you could filter the device name directly, this would mean a reduction in the daily workload. ### Database changes _No response_ ### External dependencies _No response_
adam added the type: featurepending closurestatus: under review labels 2025-12-29 21:34:12 +01:00
adam closed this issue 2025-12-29 21:34:12 +01:00
adam commented 2025-12-29 21:34:13 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Feb 20, 2025):

IIRC this is because the ?q= filter on interfaces doesn't query against the device name. Implementing this might be disruptive.

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Feb 20, 2025): IIRC this is because the `?q=` filter on interfaces doesn't query against the device name. Implementing this might be disruptive.
adam commented 2025-12-29 21:34:14 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@LHBL2003 commented on GitHub (Feb 20, 2025):

Is that really the case that it could be annoying?
Normally you want to have the interface for a device. If I search for port 1 or whatever as an interface, I get hundreds of results. So you always have to use the advanced search. This direct search for an interface has never helped me. There are simply too many interfaces with the same name. In contrast, the Device is clearer. With Device and the Device Type parameter, you could also say that it is annoying ;)
However, I think it is a very good function that you can search for the correct parameter at the same time, but also indirectly via your higher-level assignment. I would be pleased if the logic of the device (device type) was also standardised for the interface. :)

I have often asked myself why this has not been implemented in the interface. And so far I have assumed that it has simply not yet been standardised there due to a lack of time or man power.

@LHBL2003 commented on GitHub (Feb 20, 2025): Is that really the case that it could be annoying? Normally you want to have the interface for a device. If I search for port 1 or whatever as an interface, I get hundreds of results. So you always have to use the advanced search. This direct search for an interface has never helped me. There are simply too many interfaces with the same name. In contrast, the Device is clearer. With Device and the Device Type parameter, you could also say that it is annoying ;) However, I think it is a very good function that you can search for the correct parameter at the same time, but also indirectly via your higher-level assignment. I would be pleased if the logic of the device (device type) was also standardised for the interface. :) I have often asked myself why this has not been implemented in the interface. And so far I have assumed that it has simply not yet been standardised there due to a lack of time or man power.
adam commented 2025-12-29 21:34:15 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@github-actions[bot] commented on GitHub (May 22, 2025):

This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed if no further activity occurs. NetBox is governed by a small group of core maintainers which means not all opened issues may receive direct feedback. Do not attempt to circumvent this process by "bumping" the issue; doing so will result in its immediate closure and you may be barred from participating in any future discussions. Please see our contributing guide.

@github-actions[bot] commented on GitHub (May 22, 2025): This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed if no further activity occurs. NetBox is governed by a small group of core maintainers which means not all opened issues may receive direct feedback. **Do not** attempt to circumvent this process by "bumping" the issue; doing so will result in its immediate closure and you may be barred from participating in any future discussions. Please see our [contributing guide](https://github.com/netbox-community/netbox/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md).
adam commented 2025-12-29 21:34:16 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@github-actions[bot] commented on GitHub (Jun 21, 2025):

This issue has been automatically closed due to lack of activity. In an effort to reduce noise, please do not comment any further. Note that the core maintainers may elect to reopen this issue at a later date if deemed necessary.

@github-actions[bot] commented on GitHub (Jun 21, 2025): This issue has been automatically closed due to lack of activity. In an effort to reduce noise, please do not comment any further. Note that the core maintainers may elect to reopen this issue at a later date if deemed necessary.
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 pending closure status: under review 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#10654
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?