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

Custom fields of type 'object' don't work with 'empty' filter expression #11447

New Issue
Closed
opened 2025-12-29 21:45:20 +01:00 by adam · 4 comments
adam commented 2025-12-29 21:45:20 +01:00
Owner
Copy Link

Originally created by @llamafilm on GitHub (Aug 2, 2025).

Originally assigned to: @jeremystretch on GitHub.

Deployment Type

Self-hosted

NetBox Version

v4.3.2

Python Version

3.12

Steps to Reproduce

  1. Create a custom field called 'location_served' with type 'object (location)' and filter logic 'exact' and object types 'device'. (We use this when a device serves a room other than where it's physically located, for example an AV Closet next to a screening room.)
  2. Add some values to this custom field on a few devices.
  3. Try to filter /dcim/devices/?cf_location_served__empty=true

Expected Behavior

Since the custom field stores a numeric value, representing the ID of the linked object, it should respect all the numeric lookup expressions. Some expressions do work correctly, for example /dcim/devices/?cf_location_served__gt=18600.

Observed Behavior

It returns all objects, as if the filter were not present.

Originally created by @llamafilm on GitHub (Aug 2, 2025). Originally assigned to: @jeremystretch on GitHub. ### Deployment Type Self-hosted ### NetBox Version v4.3.2 ### Python Version 3.12 ### Steps to Reproduce 1. Create a custom field called 'location_served' with type 'object (location)' and filter logic 'exact' and object types 'device'. (We use this when a device serves a room other than where it's physically located, for example an AV Closet next to a screening room.) 2. Add some values to this custom field on a few devices. 3. Try to filter `/dcim/devices/?cf_location_served__empty=true` ### Expected Behavior Since the custom field stores a numeric value, representing the ID of the linked object, it should respect all the numeric lookup expressions. Some expressions do work correctly, for example `/dcim/devices/?cf_location_served__gt=18600`. ### Observed Behavior It returns all objects, as if the filter were not present.
adam added the type: bugstatus: acceptedseverity: low labels 2025-12-29 21:45:20 +01:00
adam closed this issue 2025-12-29 21:45:20 +01:00
adam commented 2025-12-29 21:45:21 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@llamafilm commented on GitHub (Aug 2, 2025):

This same bug also applies to custom fields of type 'integer'.

@llamafilm commented on GitHub (Aug 2, 2025): This same bug also applies to custom fields of type 'integer'.
adam commented 2025-12-29 21:45:21 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jnovinger commented on GitHub (Aug 4, 2025):

This appears to be a legitimate bug where the __empty and __isnull lookup expressions don't work correctly for object-type (or integer) custom fields. We'll need to verify that custom fields were intended to support the documented lookup expressions implementation gap.

In the future, please ensure your report contains complete and accurate reproduction details, including exact field names and correct syntax, as this is crucial for efficient triage.

@jnovinger commented on GitHub (Aug 4, 2025): This appears to be a legitimate bug where the `__empty` and `__isnull` lookup expressions don't work correctly for object-type (or integer) custom fields. We'll need to verify that custom fields were intended to support the documented lookup expressions implementation gap. In the future, please ensure your report contains complete and accurate reproduction details, including exact field names and correct syntax, as this is crucial for efficient triage.
adam commented 2025-12-29 21:45:21 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@llamafilm commented on GitHub (Aug 6, 2025):

Thanks, I've added some details to the original post.

@llamafilm commented on GitHub (Aug 6, 2025): Thanks, I've added some details to the original post.
adam commented 2025-12-29 21:45:22 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Aug 7, 2025):

Related to (and possibly blocked by) FR #18256

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Aug 7, 2025): Related to (and possibly blocked by) FR #18256
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 severity: low status: accepted type: bug
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#11447
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?