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

unnecessary save action device instance when it is removed #11161

New Issue
Closed
opened 2025-12-29 21:41:10 +01:00 by adam · 5 comments
adam commented 2025-12-29 21:41:10 +01:00
Owner
Copy Link

Originally created by @Taurdil on GitHub (May 12, 2025).

Deployment Type

NetBox Cloud

NetBox Version

v4.3.0

Python Version

3.12

Steps to Reproduce

  1. Create Device
  2. Create Interface of device
  3. Create IPAddress from for interface
  4. Set "Make this the primary IP for the device/VM" for IPAddress
  5. Delete Device

Expected Behavior

Only operations to delete all related objects (Device, Interface, IPAddress)

Observed Behavior

Before deleting the Device, it is updated

Originally created by @Taurdil on GitHub (May 12, 2025). ### Deployment Type NetBox Cloud ### NetBox Version v4.3.0 ### Python Version 3.12 ### Steps to Reproduce 1. Create Device 2. Create Interface of device 3. Create IPAddress from for interface 4. Set "Make this the primary IP for the device/VM" for IPAddress 5. Delete Device ### Expected Behavior Only operations to delete all related objects (Device, Interface, IPAddress) ### Observed Behavior Before deleting the Device, it is updated
adam added the type: housekeeping label 2025-12-29 21:41:10 +01:00
adam closed this issue 2025-12-29 21:41:10 +01:00
adam commented 2025-12-29 21:41:11 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jnovinger commented on GitHub (May 12, 2025):

I'm accepting this as it does make sense--if we can remove extraneous queries and still accomplish the same outcome, then we should do it.

The code responsible for doing this (in this case) appears to be ipam.signals.clear_primary_ip and was put in place purposefully--to handle clearing the "primary IP {family}" for any devices/VMs this IP address is attached to, particularly when the device/VM is not also being deleted.

I'm not at all certain how we would go about telling whether the linked device/VM is also being deleted and therefore does not need to be updated.

@jnovinger commented on GitHub (May 12, 2025): I'm accepting this as it does make sense--if we can remove extraneous queries and still accomplish the same outcome, then we should do it. The code responsible for doing this (in this case) appears to be `ipam.signals.clear_primary_ip` and was put in place purposefully--to handle clearing the "primary IP {family}" for any devices/VMs this IP address is attached to, particularly when the device/VM is not also being deleted. I'm not at all certain how we would go about telling whether the linked device/VM is also being deleted and therefore does not need to be updated.
adam commented 2025-12-29 21:41:11 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jnovinger commented on GitHub (May 12, 2025):

Apologies @Taurdil , I noticed your commit in your fork after making my comment above. Is this something you like to take ownership of?

@jnovinger commented on GitHub (May 12, 2025): Apologies @Taurdil , I noticed your commit in your fork after making my comment above. Is this something you like to take ownership of?
adam commented 2025-12-29 21:41:11 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@Taurdil commented on GitHub (May 13, 2025):

@jnovinger yep

@Taurdil commented on GitHub (May 13, 2025): @jnovinger yep
adam commented 2025-12-29 21:41:11 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (May 13, 2025):

While I can appreciate wanting to optimize this process, it is working as intended. Any conditional logic implement with the intent of bypassing the update introduces inherent complexity, increasing both development burden and risk of breakage. The negligible gains that might be realized by this change warrant neither the effort nor the risk IMO.

Additionally, I'm going to reclassify this as a housekeeping effort rather than a bug, as the application is functioning as intended.

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (May 13, 2025): While I can appreciate wanting to optimize this process, it is working as intended. Any conditional logic implement with the intent of bypassing the update introduces inherent complexity, increasing both development burden and risk of breakage. The negligible gains that might be realized by this change warrant neither the effort nor the risk IMO. Additionally, I'm going to reclassify this as a housekeeping effort rather than a bug, as the application is functioning as intended.
adam commented 2025-12-29 21:41:12 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (May 16, 2025):

After further consideration, I'm going to close this as the risk associated with interfering with the current workflow does not justify whatever modest performance gains might be recognized.

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (May 16, 2025): After further consideration, I'm going to close this as the risk associated with interfering with the current workflow does not justify whatever modest performance gains might be recognized.
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 type: housekeeping
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#11161
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?