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

Exact match when searching for custom field #1389

New Issue
Closed
opened 2025-12-29 16:31:58 +01:00 by adam · 4 comments
adam commented 2025-12-29 16:31:58 +01:00
Owner
Copy Link

Originally created by @cimnine on GitHub (Nov 7, 2017).

Issue type

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

Environment

  • Python version: 2.7
  • NetBox version: 2.2.4

Description

  • Create a custom field:
    • Objects: dcim > rack
    • Type: Text
    • Name: test1
    • Is filterable: ✔️
  • Take two racks and set the value of the custom field as follows:
    • Rack 1: urn:bla:1
    • Rack 2: urn:bla:100
  • Go to the rack overview and put a urn:bla:1 into the filter for the custom field

Expectation: I get one result.
Current behaviour: I get two results.

Suggestions

I suggest that all filtering on fields become exact and at the same time introducing a wildcard character for fuzzy searches, e.g. *. (E.g. urn:bla:1 would only match the one rack, whereas urn:bla:1* would still match both racks.)

An alternative suggestion is to add an option to the custom field's definition: Shall that field match exactly or not. (Similar to the "Is filterable" checkbox.)

Another alternative suggestion is to support the Google syntax for exact matches, i.e. everything that's wrapped in " must be an exact match. (E.g. "urn:bla:1" would only match the one rack, whereas urn:bla:1 would still match both racks.)

Originally created by @cimnine on GitHub (Nov 7, 2017). <!-- Before opening a new issue, please search through the existing issues to see if your topic has already been addressed. Note that you may need to remove the "is:open" filter from the search bar to include closed issues. Check the appropriate type for your issue below by placing an x between the brackets. For assistance with installation issues, or for any other issues other than those listed below, please raise your topic for discussion on our mailing list: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/netbox-discuss Please note that issues which do not fall under any of the below categories will be closed. Due to an excessive backlog of feature requests, we are not currently accepting any proposals which extend NetBox's feature scope. Do not prepend any sort of tag to your issue's title. An administrator will review your issue and assign labels as appropriate. ---> ### Issue type [X] Feature request <!-- An enhancement of existing functionality --> [ ] Bug report <!-- Unexpected or erroneous behavior --> [ ] Documentation <!-- A modification to the documentation --> <!-- Please describe the environment in which you are running NetBox. (Be sure to verify that you are running the latest stable release of NetBox before submitting a bug report.) If you are submitting a bug report and have made any changes to the code base, please first validate that your bug can be recreated while running an official release. --> ### Environment * Python version: 2.7 * NetBox version: 2.2.4 <!-- BUG REPORTS must include: * A list of the steps needed for someone else to reproduce the bug * A description of the expected and observed behavior * Any relevant error messages (screenshots may also help) FEATURE REQUESTS must include: * A detailed description of the proposed functionality * A use case for the new feature * A rough description of any necessary changes to the database schema * Any relevant third-party libraries which would be needed --> ### Description * Create a custom field: * Objects: dcim > rack * Type: Text * Name: test1 * Is filterable: ✔️ * Take two racks and set the value of the custom field as follows: * Rack 1: `urn:bla:1` * Rack 2: `urn:bla:100` * Go to the rack overview and put a `urn:bla:1` into the filter for the custom field **Expectation:** I get one result. **Current behaviour:** I get two results. #### Suggestions I suggest that all filtering on fields become exact and at the same time introducing a wildcard character for fuzzy searches, e.g. `*`. (E.g. `urn:bla:1` would only match the one rack, whereas `urn:bla:1*` would still match both racks.) An alternative suggestion is to add an option to the custom field's definition: Shall that field match exactly or not. (Similar to the "Is filterable" checkbox.) Another alternative suggestion is to support the Google syntax for exact matches, i.e. everything that's wrapped in `"` must be an exact match. (E.g. `"urn:bla:1"` would only match the one rack, whereas `urn:bla:1` would still match both racks.)
adam added the status: acceptedtype: feature labels 2025-12-29 16:31:58 +01:00
adam closed this issue 2025-12-29 16:31:58 +01:00
adam commented 2025-12-29 16:31:59 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@cimnine commented on GitHub (Nov 7, 2017):

Some context

We're using custom fields to represent the IDs of our legacy system, which happen to be URNs. (These are all over the place, so we have to stick with them for a long time.) Currently, I'm writing a tool that copies any rack from the legacy system to Netbox and updates all racks already existing in Netbox based on the custom field. Hence I would appreciate if I could have a way to do exact-match lookups on custom fields.

@cimnine commented on GitHub (Nov 7, 2017): **Some context** We're using custom fields to represent the IDs of our legacy system, which happen to be URNs. (These are all over the place, so we have to stick with them for a long time.) Currently, I'm writing a tool that copies any rack from the legacy system to Netbox and updates all racks already existing in Netbox based on the custom field. Hence I would appreciate if I could have a way to do exact-match lookups on custom fields.
adam commented 2025-12-29 16:31:59 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@troxil commented on GitHub (Nov 9, 2017):

@cimnine Isn't this how all existing filtering works? It's not exact at all. Prefixes, devices etc.

@troxil commented on GitHub (Nov 9, 2017): @cimnine Isn't this how all existing filtering works? It's not exact at all. Prefixes, devices etc.
adam commented 2025-12-29 16:31:59 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@cimnine commented on GitHub (Nov 10, 2017):

Thanks for pointing this out, @troxil. I've changed it from a bug report to feature request.

@cimnine commented on GitHub (Nov 10, 2017): Thanks for pointing this out, @troxil. I've changed it from a bug report to feature request.
adam commented 2025-12-29 16:31:59 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Feb 21, 2018):

An alternative suggestion is to add an option to the custom field's definition: Shall that field match exactly or not. (Similar to the "Is filterable" checkbox.)

This seems like a favorable approach over introducing a potentially ambiguous wildcard approach.

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Feb 21, 2018): > An alternative suggestion is to add an option to the custom field's definition: Shall that field match exactly or not. (Similar to the "Is filterable" checkbox.) This seems like a favorable approach over introducing a potentially ambiguous wildcard approach.
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#1389
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?