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

DeviceType - Add ConfigTemplate field #11418

New Issue
Closed
opened 2025-12-29 21:45:00 +01:00 by adam · 3 comments
adam commented 2025-12-29 21:45:00 +01:00
Owner
Copy Link

Originally created by @zndrr on GitHub (Jul 26, 2025).

NetBox version

v4.3.4

Feature type

New functionality

Proposed functionality

Add a Config Template field to the DeviceType model, similar to the fields present on Device, Platform and DeviceRole. Devices will be able to render contents.

Use case

Currently you can reference a template on the Device, but it would be advantageous to be able to apply one against the Device's model, to be inherited using the same mechanisms.

For those with model-specific templates, this means you can directly reference those on the DeviceType.
For me in particular, this would allow better recyclng existing external templates with very little adjustment to be compatible with both NetBox and external platforms.

It also means not having to load an abstract base template against the Platform or Role, which then includes the relevant model base.

This will likely mean adjustment for template inheritence on a Device. Not sure the order of preference, but perhaps Device -> Platform -> Role -> DeviceType ?

Database changes

  • Additional table column for config_template on DeviceType.
  • Potential constraints? Unsure at this stage, but if there are considerations like default_platform on the DeviceType, vs platform on Device... perhaps the column becomes default_config_template on the DeviceType?

External dependencies

None

Originally created by @zndrr on GitHub (Jul 26, 2025). ### NetBox version v4.3.4 ### Feature type New functionality ### Proposed functionality Add a Config Template field to the DeviceType model, similar to the fields present on Device, Platform and DeviceRole. Devices will be able to render contents. ### Use case Currently you can reference a template on the Device, but it would be advantageous to be able to apply one against the Device's model, to be inherited using the same mechanisms. For those with model-specific templates, this means you can directly reference those on the DeviceType. For me in particular, this would allow better recyclng existing external templates with very little adjustment to be compatible with both NetBox and external platforms. It also means not having to load an abstract base template against the Platform or Role, which then includes the relevant model base. This will likely mean adjustment for template inheritence on a Device. Not sure the order of preference, but perhaps Device -> Platform -> Role -> DeviceType ? ### Database changes - Additional table column for config_template on DeviceType. - Potential constraints? Unsure at this stage, but if there are considerations like default_platform on the DeviceType, vs platform on Device... perhaps the column becomes default_config_template on the DeviceType? ### External dependencies None
adam added the type: featurestatus: under review labels 2025-12-29 21:45:00 +01:00
adam closed this issue 2025-12-29 21:45:00 +01:00
adam commented 2025-12-29 21:45:01 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Jul 29, 2025):

The config template should be determined by the assigned role, not by the hardware type, as a given device can typically serve multiple roles.

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Jul 29, 2025): The config template should be determined by the assigned role, not by the hardware type, as a given device can typically serve multiple roles.
adam commented 2025-12-29 21:45:01 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@zndrr commented on GitHub (Jul 30, 2025):

Thanks for the response.

We use roles to classify the device relative to a service type sold, e.g. Internet Firewall Primary, or WAN Router Secondary, etc.
Then we have config contexts applied against said roles for minutia like tacacs hosts, snmp, etc.

The base templates are still a model (or family) specific base for us, as there isn't enough config variation between those roles to justify a role-first approach. Multi-vendor as well.

Model-specific templates have been the most common occurrence of templates that I've seen in the ISP space where I'm from. Perhaps not as common as I thought though?

Given that you can apply a template to a device directly already, is enabling the same approach from the model infeasible?

@zndrr commented on GitHub (Jul 30, 2025): Thanks for the response. We use roles to classify the device relative to a service type sold, e.g. Internet Firewall Primary, or WAN Router Secondary, etc. Then we have config contexts applied against said roles for minutia like tacacs hosts, snmp, etc. The base templates are still a model (or family) specific base for us, as there isn't enough config variation between those roles to justify a role-first approach. Multi-vendor as well. Model-specific templates have been the most common occurrence of templates that I've seen in the ISP space where I'm from. Perhaps not as common as I thought though? Given that you can apply a template to a device directly already, is enabling the same approach from the model infeasible?
adam commented 2025-12-29 21:45:02 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@arthanson commented on GitHub (Jul 31, 2025):

Closing for reasons stated above in Jeremy's comment.

@arthanson commented on GitHub (Jul 31, 2025): Closing for reasons stated above in Jeremy's comment.
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 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#11418
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?