starred/netbox
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/netbox-community/netbox.git synced 2026-01-14 06:13:32 +01:00
Code Issues 273 Packages Projects Releases 10 Wiki Activity

Add to filter ability to select multiply values from custom field with 'Type = Selection' #11881

New Issue
Closed
opened 2025-12-29 21:51:11 +01:00 by adam · 2 comments
adam commented 2025-12-29 21:51:11 +01:00
Owner
Copy Link

Originally created by @mtroshyn on GitHub (Nov 28, 2025).

Originally assigned to: @pheus on GitHub.

NetBox version

v4.2.2

Feature type

New functionality

Proposed functionality

First, I will show the problem on screenshot. We have custom field 'Client' with type = Selection. The selection stores several thousands of choises. We use this custom field in rack object.
Image

When we try to use rack filter and select several values from custom field 'Client', we can't do it. Netbox allows to choose only one choice.
Image

My proposal is to implement ability to choose several values in filter for custom fields with type = selection.

Use case

This feature improve user experience working with netbox. Also it saves time to get information from netbox based on some criteria.

Database changes

No response

External dependencies

No response

Originally created by @mtroshyn on GitHub (Nov 28, 2025). Originally assigned to: @pheus on GitHub. ### NetBox version v4.2.2 ### Feature type New functionality ### Proposed functionality First, I will show the problem on screenshot. We have custom field 'Client' with type = Selection. The selection stores several thousands of choises. We use this custom field in rack object. <img width="1440" height="763" alt="Image" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/7e7e8107-0043-483c-bffe-ff139ce688ad" /> When we try to use rack filter and select several values from custom field 'Client', we can't do it. Netbox allows to choose only one choice. <img width="1440" height="754" alt="Image" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/a9c65971-51e2-44db-9771-82a67d177be3" /> My proposal is to implement ability to choose several values in filter for custom fields with type = selection. ### Use case This feature improve user experience working with netbox. Also it saves time to get information from netbox based on some criteria. ### Database changes _No response_ ### External dependencies _No response_
adam added the status: acceptedtype: featurenetboxcomplexity: low labels 2025-12-29 21:51:11 +01:00
adam closed this issue 2025-12-29 21:51:11 +01:00
adam commented 2025-12-29 21:51:12 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@pheus commented on GitHub (Dec 10, 2025):

I had a quick look at the CustomField.to_form_field() helper. As it stands, the TYPE_SELECT custom field always maps to a single-value choice field & widget, even when it’s used to build filter forms. That’s why the rack filter UI only allows picking one value from a selection-type custom field today.

To address this, I’d like to extend to_form_field() with a for_filter_form flag, similar to the existing for_csv_import argument. When for_filter_form=True and type == TYPE_SELECT, we could return a multiple-choice field (e.g. using APISelectMultiple), while keeping the existing behavior unchanged for create/edit/bulk-edit forms.

If this approach sounds acceptable, I’d be happy to pick this up and open a PR.

@pheus commented on GitHub (Dec 10, 2025): I had a quick look at the `CustomField.to_form_field()` helper. As it stands, the `TYPE_SELECT` custom field always maps to a single-value choice field & widget, even when it’s used to build filter forms. That’s why the rack filter UI only allows picking one value from a selection-type custom field today. To address this, I’d like to extend `to_form_field()` with a `for_filter_form` flag, similar to the existing `for_csv_import` argument. When `for_filter_form=True` and `type == TYPE_SELECT`, we could return a multiple-choice field (e.g. using `APISelectMultiple`), while keeping the existing behavior unchanged for create/edit/bulk-edit forms. If this approach sounds acceptable, I’d be happy to pick this up and open a PR.
adam commented 2025-12-29 21:51:12 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jnovinger commented on GitHub (Dec 15, 2025):

Sounds workable, @pheus. Assigning now.

@jnovinger commented on GitHub (Dec 15, 2025): Sounds workable, @pheus. Assigning now.
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#11881
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?