starred/netbox
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/netbox-community/netbox.git synced 2026-01-13 22:03:32 +01:00
Code Issues 273 Packages Projects Releases 10 Wiki Activity

Support negative permissions constraints #11848

New Issue
Open
opened 2025-12-29 21:50:39 +01:00 by adam · 3 comments
adam commented 2025-12-29 21:50:39 +01:00
Owner
Copy Link

Originally created by @llamafilm on GitHub (Nov 19, 2025).

NetBox version

v4.4.6

Feature type

New functionality

Proposed functionality

I'd like to create permissions constraints with negations. The constraint JSON syntax would use the same lookup expressions which are already supported in the REST API, for example {"vrf_id__n": null}.

Use case

I've built a few automations to pull in data from external sources into Netbox. I don't want users to edit those objects because any changes may break the automation. One example is: Prefixes in the global VRF are imported from BloxOne DDI, so users should not be able to edit them. We have a number of air-gapped networks, which each use overlapping 192.168 address space. Each of those is modeled as a separate VRF in Netbox, and users should be able to manipulate those Prefixes freely. So I would like to create 2 separate permissions for Prefix editing, one with {"vrf_id": null} and the other with {"vrf_id__n": null}

Database changes

No response

External dependencies

No response

Originally created by @llamafilm on GitHub (Nov 19, 2025). ### NetBox version v4.4.6 ### Feature type New functionality ### Proposed functionality I'd like to create permissions constraints with negations. The constraint JSON syntax would use the same lookup expressions which are already supported in the REST API, for example `{"vrf_id__n": null}`. ### Use case I've built a few automations to pull in data from external sources into Netbox. I don't want users to edit those objects because any changes may break the automation. One example is: Prefixes in the global VRF are imported from BloxOne DDI, so users should not be able to edit them. We have a number of air-gapped networks, which each use overlapping 192.168 address space. Each of those is modeled as a separate VRF in Netbox, and users should be able to manipulate those Prefixes freely. So I would like to create 2 separate permissions for Prefix editing, one with `{"vrf_id": null}` and the other with `{"vrf_id__n": null}` ### Database changes _No response_ ### External dependencies _No response_
adam added the type: featurepending closurestatus: revisions needednetbox labels 2025-12-29 21:50:39 +01:00
adam commented 2025-12-29 21:50:40 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

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

Seems to be essentially the same request as #4949, which was closed as stale while under review. At the very least, we'd need to figure out if this is any more feasible now than it was in the past.

FWIW, the __n convention is a NetBox filterset convention. It is not something that is available at the ORM query construction level, like conventional Django ORM filters/lookups. That technical hurdle will need to be addressed if this is to move forward, since permission constraints are based on queryset operations.

@llamafilm, please update your FR with how you propose to achieve this. Otherwise, I don't believe this FR is actionable as it stands.

@jnovinger commented on GitHub (Nov 19, 2025): Seems to be essentially the same request as #4949, which was closed as stale while under review. At the very least, we'd need to figure out if this is any more feasible now than it was in the past. FWIW, the `__n` convention is a NetBox filterset convention. It is _**not**_ something that is available at the ORM query construction level, like conventional Django ORM filters/lookups. That technical hurdle will need to be addressed if this is to move forward, since permission constraints are based on queryset operations. @llamafilm, please update your FR with how you propose to achieve this. Otherwise, I don't believe this FR is actionable as it stands.
adam commented 2025-12-29 21:50:40 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@github-actions[bot] commented on GitHub (Nov 27, 2025):

This is a reminder that additional information is needed in order to further triage this issue. If the requested details are not provided, the issue will soon be closed automatically.

@github-actions[bot] commented on GitHub (Nov 27, 2025): This is a reminder that additional information is needed in order to further triage this issue. If the requested details are not provided, the issue will soon be closed automatically.
adam commented 2025-12-29 21:50:40 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

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

I thought about this, and came up with a working demo, by adding an invert key to each permission JSON. To Jeremy's point in that old ticket, I don't think this would have any impact on cached permissions, since the top-level keys remain the same, we would just ignore that one.

There is a separate issue, that when a user has permission to edit some objects of a model but not all, the edit button leads to a 404. It would be nicer if the edit button did not appear at all. With this change, that issue remains the same.

But in the end, I decided not to pursue this, because it adds too much complexity and I figured out how to achieve our goals without it.

@llamafilm commented on GitHub (Dec 2, 2025): I thought about this, and came up with a working demo, by adding an `invert` key to each permission JSON. To Jeremy's point in that old ticket, I don't think this would have any impact on cached permissions, since the top-level keys remain the same, we would just ignore that one. There is a separate issue, that when a user has permission to edit _some_ objects of a model but not all, the edit button leads to a 404. It would be nicer if the edit button did not appear at all. With this change, that issue remains the same. But in the end, I decided not to pursue this, because it adds too much complexity and I figured out how to achieve our goals without it.
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 netbox pending closure status: revisions needed 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#11848
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?