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

Add an asset tag field to the rack model #1186

New Issue
Closed
opened 2025-12-29 16:29:50 +01:00 by adam · 2 comments
adam commented 2025-12-29 16:29:50 +01:00
Owner
Copy Link

Originally created by @mattbostock on GitHub (Aug 21, 2017).

Issue type

[x] Feature request
[ ] Bug report
[ ] Documentation

Environment

  • Python version: N/A
  • NetBox version: 2.0.7

Description

Add fields to the rack model so that one can identify:

  • the manufacturer of the physical rack
  • the model number
  • the serial number
  • the asset tag

Use case

In the same way that it's useful to know what device type (model and manufacturer) a server is, it's also useful to know the same details for the rack:

  • serial number and asset tags helps to uniquely identify a given rack
  • manufacturer and model helps to identify a rack and track inventory
Originally created by @mattbostock on GitHub (Aug 21, 2017). ### Issue type [x] Feature request <!-- Requesting the implementation of a new feature --> [ ] Bug report <!-- Reporting unexpected or erroneous behavior --> [ ] Documentation <!-- Proposing a modification to the documentation --> ### Environment * Python version: N/A * NetBox version: 2.0.7 ### Description Add fields to the rack model so that one can identify: - the manufacturer of the physical rack - the model number - the serial number - the asset tag ### Use case In the same way that it's useful to know what device type (model and manufacturer) a server is, it's also useful to know the same details for the rack: - serial number and asset tags helps to uniquely identify a given rack - manufacturer and model helps to identify a rack and track inventory
adam added the status: acceptedtype: feature labels 2025-12-29 16:29:50 +01:00
adam closed this issue 2025-12-29 16:29:51 +01:00
adam commented 2025-12-29 16:29:51 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Aug 21, 2017):

The problem with adding a RackType object analogous to DeviceType is we've already associated a type, width, and height with each individual rack. Introducing a separate model for this would allow racks of the same RackType to have different physical characteristics defined locally, which obviously wouldn't make sense. It would be possible to allow users to begin adopting the new approach at their leisure, but many would opt not to pursue it and I don't want to support two schemes for defining racks indefinitely.

Alternatively, we could add a direct association from the Rack model to the Manufacturer model, and add a model character field, but that doesn't strike me as particularly useful.

Serial number I have no problem adding. Asset tag might be problematic, as it's reasonable to assume that an asset tag will be unique across racks and devices, so we'd have to change it from a local field to a ForeignKey on a new model with its own table, which could get messy with regard to data migrations.

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Aug 21, 2017): The problem with adding a RackType object analogous to DeviceType is we've already associated a type, width, and height with each individual rack. Introducing a separate model for this would allow racks of the same RackType to have different physical characteristics defined locally, which obviously wouldn't make sense. It would be possible to allow users to begin adopting the new approach at their leisure, but many would opt not to pursue it and I don't want to support two schemes for defining racks indefinitely. Alternatively, we could add a direct association from the Rack model to the Manufacturer model, and add a `model` character field, but that doesn't strike me as particularly useful. Serial number I have no problem adding. Asset tag might be problematic, as it's reasonable to assume that an asset tag will be unique across racks _and_ devices, so we'd have to change it from a local field to a ForeignKey on a new model with its own table, which could get messy with regard to data migrations.
adam commented 2025-12-29 16:29:51 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Oct 9, 2017):

I'm going to hold off on adding an asset tag field to the rack model for now. I'd like to gather more feedback on that feature before we implement to avoid working ourselves into a corner.

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Oct 9, 2017): I'm going to hold off on adding an asset tag field to the rack model for now. I'd like to gather more feedback on that feature before we implement to avoid working ourselves into a corner.
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: 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#1186
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?