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 unified interface VLAN column #10828

New Issue
Closed
opened 2025-12-29 21:36:23 +01:00 by adam · 4 comments
adam commented 2025-12-29 21:36:23 +01:00
Owner
Copy Link

Originally created by @alehaa on GitHub (Feb 28, 2025).

NetBox version

v4.2.4

Feature type

Other

Proposed functionality

Add a new column vlans, unifying the results of untagged_vlan and tagged_vlans.

Use case

For switches, most interfaces are of type access and have an untagged_vlan assigned. Only some ports are uplink ports and use tagged_vlans (if not tagged (all)). For a quick overview, this requires two columns, where for most rows at least one cell is empty. Adding a single column provides a quick overview of the available VLANs on a given port and takes up less horizontal space.

Database changes

None

External dependencies

None

Originally created by @alehaa on GitHub (Feb 28, 2025). ### NetBox version v4.2.4 ### Feature type Other ### Proposed functionality Add a new column `vlans`, unifying the results of `untagged_vlan` and `tagged_vlans`. ### Use case For switches, most interfaces are of type `access` and have an `untagged_vlan` assigned. Only some ports are uplink ports and use `tagged_vlans` (if not `tagged (all)`). For a quick overview, this requires two columns, where for most rows at least one cell is empty. Adding a single column provides a quick overview of the available VLANs on a given port and takes up less horizontal space. ### Database changes None ### External dependencies None
adam added the type: featurepending closurestatus: under review labels 2025-12-29 21:36:23 +01:00
adam closed this issue 2025-12-29 21:36:23 +01:00
adam commented 2025-12-29 21:36:24 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

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

This seems like it would introduce unnecessary ambiguity IMO. You would still need to distinguish between tagged and untagged VLANs within the column somehow. It's a lot cleaner just using the two separate columns.

What is the problem you're trying to address with the proposed change? Is it simply more efficient use of screen space?

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Mar 6, 2025): This seems like it would introduce unnecessary ambiguity IMO. You would still need to distinguish between tagged and untagged VLANs within the column somehow. It's a lot cleaner just using the two separate columns. What is the problem you're trying to address with the proposed change? Is it simply more efficient use of screen space?
adam commented 2025-12-29 21:36:24 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@alehaa commented on GitHub (Mar 9, 2025):

It's simply just more efficient use of screen space. Especially on small devices like a tablet, space is valuable. However, I also understand the problem of ambiguity that this would introduce.

@alehaa commented on GitHub (Mar 9, 2025): It's simply just more efficient use of screen space. Especially on small devices like a tablet, space is valuable. However, I also understand the problem of ambiguity that this would introduce.
adam commented 2025-12-29 21:36:25 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@github-actions[bot] commented on GitHub (Jun 8, 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 (Jun 8, 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 21:36:25 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@github-actions[bot] commented on GitHub (Jul 9, 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 (Jul 9, 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#10828
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?