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

When creating Interfaces, allow more wildcard variants #1302

New Issue
Closed
opened 2025-12-29 16:31:14 +01:00 by adam · 6 comments
adam commented 2025-12-29 16:31:14 +01:00
Owner
Copy Link

Originally created by @darkstar on GitHub (Oct 13, 2017).

Issue type

[X] Feature request
[ ] Bug report
[ ] Documentation

Environment

  • Python version: 3.5.2
  • NetBox version: 2.2.1

Description

When adding interfaces to a device or device template, there is already a Syntax in place to have multiple numbered interfaces created with one single step: Eth1/[1-32] for example.

I am managing systems that do not have such a numbered syntax for the network interfaces. For example, I might have to create interfaces e0a, e0b, e0c and e0d.

Currently, this involves 4 clicks on "create and add another", each with selecting the interface type from the list again, which is tedious.

My suggestion is to allow another syntax: e0a,e0b,e0c,e0d to create, in this case, 4 interfaces at the same time.

An alternative would be to allow letters in the brackets as well, which would enable a syntax like e0[a,b,c,d] which would also be fine. Even better, of course, would be e0[a-d] ... But I am fine with any of these options.

If that is not feasible, I would at least like to have the "Create and add another" button to remember all selections in the drop down lists for the next interface, to reduce clicking required. I can open a new case for this if it is necessary.

Originally created by @darkstar on GitHub (Oct 13, 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: 3.5.2 * NetBox version: 2.2.1 ### Description When adding interfaces to a device or device template, there is already a Syntax in place to have multiple numbered interfaces created with one single step: ```Eth1/[1-32]``` for example. I am managing systems that do not have such a numbered syntax for the network interfaces. For example, I might have to create interfaces ```e0a```, ```e0b```, ```e0c``` and ```e0d```. Currently, this involves 4 clicks on "create and add another", each with selecting the interface type from the list again, which is tedious. My suggestion is to allow another syntax: ```e0a,e0b,e0c,e0d``` to create, in this case, 4 interfaces at the same time. An alternative would be to allow letters in the brackets as well, which would enable a syntax like ```e0[a,b,c,d]``` which would also be fine. Even better, of course, would be ```e0[a-d]``` ... But I am fine with any of these options. If that is not feasible, I would at least like to have the "Create and add another" button to remember all selections in the drop down lists for the next interface, to reduce clicking required. I can open a new case for this if it is necessary.
adam added the status: acceptedtype: feature labels 2025-12-29 16:31:14 +01:00
adam closed this issue 2025-12-29 16:31:14 +01:00
adam commented 2025-12-29 16:31:14 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@eqTom commented on GitHub (Oct 13, 2017):

Mileage may vary based on OS and Browser, however if you're looking for a temp way of doing this -

Hold "ctrl" while clicking create, the creating runs in a new tab, which you can close once completed. Your then left with the original tab, which you can quickly edit and create again etc.

@eqTom commented on GitHub (Oct 13, 2017): Mileage may vary based on OS and Browser, however if you're looking for a temp way of doing this - Hold "ctrl" while clicking create, the creating runs in a new tab, which you can close once completed. Your then left with the original tab, which you can quickly edit and create again etc.
adam commented 2025-12-29 16:31:14 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@netsiphon commented on GitHub (Oct 14, 2017):

Besides being able to import interface definitions from outside documentation or import previous exports via csv, the ability to add multiple interfaces simultaneously that can't otherwise be easily entered via built-in wildcard is a plus. #1465

@netsiphon commented on GitHub (Oct 14, 2017): Besides being able to import interface definitions from outside documentation or import previous exports via csv, the ability to add multiple interfaces simultaneously that can't otherwise be easily entered via built-in wildcard is a plus. #1465
adam commented 2025-12-29 16:31:14 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@RyanBreaker commented on GitHub (Oct 24, 2017):

I have a working solution almost ready, just need to write tests and documentation, I'll try to get it pushed this week.

@RyanBreaker commented on GitHub (Oct 24, 2017): I have a working solution almost ready, just need to write tests and documentation, I'll try to get it pushed this week.
adam commented 2025-12-29 16:31:15 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@darkstar commented on GitHub (Oct 24, 2017):

@RyanBreaker just curious, which syntax would your solution provide?

@darkstar commented on GitHub (Oct 24, 2017): @RyanBreaker just curious, which syntax would your solution provide?
adam commented 2025-12-29 16:31:15 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@RyanBreaker commented on GitHub (Oct 24, 2017):

@darkstar It'll be the separated format:

eth[0-3][a-c,f] => eth0a eth0b eth0c eth0f eth1a ... eth3f

Edit:
It'll also support mixing them, for example:

eth[0-3,a-c,f] => eth0 eth1 eth2 eth3 etha ethb ethc ethf
@RyanBreaker commented on GitHub (Oct 24, 2017): @darkstar It'll be the separated format: ```nohighlight eth[0-3][a-c,f] => eth0a eth0b eth0c eth0f eth1a ... eth3f ``` Edit: It'll also support mixing them, for example: ```nohighlight eth[0-3,a-c,f] => eth0 eth1 eth2 eth3 etha ethb ethc ethf ```
adam commented 2025-12-29 16:31:15 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@larsuhartmann commented on GitHub (Jan 18, 2018):

Is there a chance for this Pull Request to be merged?
This would really come in handy!

@larsuhartmann commented on GitHub (Jan 18, 2018): Is there a chance for this Pull Request to be merged? This would really come in handy!
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#1302
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?