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 JSON schema validation for Context Data #11107

New Issue
Closed
opened 2025-12-29 21:40:26 +01:00 by adam · 2 comments
adam commented 2025-12-29 21:40:26 +01:00
Owner
Copy Link

Originally created by @TribuneX on GitHub (May 2, 2025).

Originally assigned to: @jeremystretch on GitHub.

NetBox version

v4.3.0

Feature type

New functionality

Proposed functionality

Similar to the proposal outline in https://github.com/netbox-community/netbox/issues/19025 it would be really useful if a user could specify a json schema along with a config context entry.

Use case

The structure of config context can be crucial for consuming systems (e.g. automated provisioning). We currently implement JSON schema validation with custom validation. However, it is always difficult to identify which config context a certain validation should be applied to.

Being able to assign a schema directly to a config context entry would remove that complexity.

Database changes

Add an optional schema JSONField to the Config Context data model.

External dependencies

jsonschema for implementing the validation in the backend

Originally created by @TribuneX on GitHub (May 2, 2025). Originally assigned to: @jeremystretch on GitHub. ### NetBox version v4.3.0 ### Feature type New functionality ### Proposed functionality Similar to the proposal outline in https://github.com/netbox-community/netbox/issues/19025 it would be really useful if a user could specify a json schema along with a [config context](https://netboxlabs.com/docs/netbox/en/stable/features/context-data/) entry. ### Use case The structure of config context can be crucial for consuming systems (e.g. automated provisioning). We currently implement JSON schema validation with [custom validation](https://netboxlabs.com/docs/netbox/en/stable/customization/custom-validation/). However, it is always difficult to identify which config context a certain validation should be applied to. Being able to assign a schema directly to a config context entry would remove that complexity. ### Database changes Add an optional schema `JSONField` to the Config Context data model. ### External dependencies `jsonschema` for implementing the validation in the backend
adam added the status: acceptedtype: featurecomplexity: medium labels 2025-12-29 21:40:26 +01:00
adam closed this issue 2025-12-29 21:40:26 +01:00
adam commented 2025-12-29 21:40:26 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Jul 17, 2025):

Somewhat related to FR #19025

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Jul 17, 2025): Somewhat related to FR #19025
adam commented 2025-12-29 21:40:27 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Aug 8, 2025):

Add an optional schema JSONField to the Config Context data model.

Rather than adding a schema definition field directly on the ConfigContext model, which would be of limited utility, I've introduced a new ConfigContextProfile model to hold the schema definition. This allows it to be reused, and separates its definition from the data it validates.

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Aug 8, 2025): > Add an optional schema JSONField to the Config Context data model. Rather than adding a schema definition field directly on the ConfigContext model, which would be of limited utility, I've introduced a new ConfigContextProfile model to hold the schema definition. This allows it to be reused, and separates its definition from the data it validates.
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 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#11107
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?