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 - add ability to filter and sort by object type #11839

New Issue
Closed
opened 2025-12-29 21:50:30 +01:00 by adam · 5 comments
adam commented 2025-12-29 21:50:30 +01:00
Owner
Copy Link

Originally created by @matejv on GitHub (Nov 18, 2025).

Originally assigned to: @pheus on GitHub.

NetBox version

v4.4.6

Feature type

New functionality

Proposed functionality

Add ability to filter Custom fields list (/extras/custom-fields/) by their assigned Object Types.

Also make Object types column sortable. Though I suspect there is a good reason that sorting is disabled. Just filtering would go a long way to make the list more manageable.

Use case

You could for example filter all custom fields that are assigned to Interface.

Once you get to a few dozen and more custom fields in a netbox installation it becomes difficult to quickly see what fields belong where.

Database changes

No response

External dependencies

No response

Originally created by @matejv on GitHub (Nov 18, 2025). Originally assigned to: @pheus on GitHub. ### NetBox version v4.4.6 ### Feature type New functionality ### Proposed functionality Add ability to filter Custom fields list (`/extras/custom-fields/`) by their assigned Object Types. Also make Object types column sortable. Though I suspect there is a good reason that sorting is disabled. Just filtering would go a long way to make the list more manageable. ### Use case You could for example filter all custom fields that are assigned to Interface. Once you get to a few dozen and more custom fields in a netbox installation it becomes difficult to quickly see what fields belong where. ### Database changes _No response_ ### External dependencies _No response_
adam added the status: acceptedtype: featurenetboxcomplexity: low labels 2025-12-29 21:50:30 +01:00
adam closed this issue 2025-12-29 21:50:30 +01:00
adam commented 2025-12-29 21:50:31 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@mr1716 commented on GitHub (Nov 18, 2025):

@matejv would it be easier to track the ask for making the Object Types table columns sortable if it were a separate ticket? And maybe more likely to have either or both tickets handled?

Not a maintainer so not authoritative in any way but just some food for thought

@mr1716 commented on GitHub (Nov 18, 2025): @matejv would it be easier to track the ask for making the Object Types table columns sortable if it were a separate ticket? And maybe more likely to have either or both tickets handled? Not a maintainer so not authoritative in any way but just some food for thought
adam commented 2025-12-29 21:50:31 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jnovinger commented on GitHub (Nov 19, 2025):

Unfortunately, making the Object Type field sortable is not feasible, because of it's many-to-many nature.

However, we should absolutely add a filter form field for the object_types field, especially since there are already filterset fields available for use (e.g. object_type=tenancy.Tenant or object_type_id=110, which both work for the Tenant model in my instance).

@jnovinger commented on GitHub (Nov 19, 2025): Unfortunately, making the Object Type field sortable is not feasible, because of it's many-to-many nature. However, we should absolutely add a filter form field for the `object_types` field, especially since there are already filterset fields available for use (e.g. `object_type=tenancy.Tenant` or `object_type_id=110`, which both work for the `Tenant` model in my instance).
adam commented 2025-12-29 21:50:31 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@pheus commented on GitHub (Nov 19, 2025):

I'd like to contribute this enhancement. Can you please assign this issue to me? Thank you!

@pheus commented on GitHub (Nov 19, 2025): I'd like to contribute this enhancement. Can you please assign this issue to me? Thank you!
adam commented 2025-12-29 21:50:31 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jnovinger commented on GitHub (Nov 19, 2025):

Thanks, @pheus. All yours!

@jnovinger commented on GitHub (Nov 19, 2025): Thanks, @pheus. All yours!
adam commented 2025-12-29 21:50:32 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jnovinger commented on GitHub (Nov 19, 2025):

FWIW, this can be targeted at main to be released in patch release.

@jnovinger commented on GitHub (Nov 19, 2025): FWIW, this can be targeted at `main` to be released in patch release.
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: low netbox 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#11839
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?