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

Object change logging #1565

New Issue
Closed
opened 2025-12-29 16:33:00 +01:00 by adam · 10 comments
adam commented 2025-12-29 16:33:00 +01:00
Owner
Copy Link

Originally created by @jeremystretch on GitHub (Feb 20, 2018).

Issue type

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

Environment

  • Python version: 3.5.2
  • NetBox version: 2.2.9

Description

This issue seeks to unify and supersede the following open issues addressing different shortcomings of the current user activity logging function:

  • #683 - Device history
  • #1127 - Logging of actions should be triggered via signals rather than explicitly within each view
  • #1834 - User activity is not exported via standard logging facilities
  • #1896 - Object history is lost when the associated user account is deleted

The new system should address all of the above points, as well as incorporate a more robust representation of object history, perhaps using JSON fields to record before and after versions of the object being modified.

Originally created by @jeremystretch on GitHub (Feb 20, 2018). ### Issue type [x] Feature request <!-- An enhancement of existing functionality --> [ ] Bug report <!-- Unexpected or erroneous behavior --> [ ] Documentation <!-- A modification to the documentation --> ### Environment * Python version: 3.5.2 * NetBox version: 2.2.9 ### Description This issue seeks to unify and supersede the following open issues addressing different shortcomings of the current user activity logging function: * #683 - Device history * #1127 - Logging of actions should be triggered via signals rather than explicitly within each view * #1834 - User activity is not exported via standard logging facilities * #1896 - Object history is lost when the associated user account is deleted The new system should address all of the above points, as well as incorporate a more robust representation of object history, perhaps using JSON fields to record before and after versions of the object being modified.
adam added the status: accepted label 2025-12-29 16:33:00 +01:00
adam closed this issue 2025-12-29 16:33:01 +01:00
adam commented 2025-12-29 16:33:02 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@troxil commented on GitHub (Feb 26, 2018):

Hey @jeremystretch will this enable API calls to be logged? CRUD via the API.

@troxil commented on GitHub (Feb 26, 2018): Hey @jeremystretch will this enable API calls to be logged? CRUD via the API.
adam commented 2025-12-29 16:33:02 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Feb 27, 2018):

@troxil Yes, the goal is to log every change to a model regardless of how it was effected (GUI, API, or shell).

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Feb 27, 2018): @troxil Yes, the goal is to log every change to a model regardless of how it was effected (GUI, API, or shell).
adam commented 2025-12-29 16:33:02 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Jun 13, 2018):

I've started work on this under the 1898-activity-logging branch.

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Jun 13, 2018): I've started work on this under the [1898-activity-logging](https://github.com/digitalocean/netbox/tree/1898-activity-logging) branch.
adam commented 2025-12-29 16:33:02 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Jun 25, 2018):

Implemented in #2198. Change logging will be included in the v2.4 beta.

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Jun 25, 2018): Implemented in #2198. Change logging will be included in the v2.4 beta.
adam commented 2025-12-29 16:33:02 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@pm17788 commented on GitHub (Jun 26, 2018):

Stood up an instance (with blank data) using the devel-2.4 branch.
Saw the changelog attached to the device, as well as /extras/changelog. Two questions came up:

  1. How do I get my hands on that data?
  2. How do I push that data to an external source? (For auditing purposes, change management data really should be logged outside of the thing being audited)
@pm17788 commented on GitHub (Jun 26, 2018): Stood up an instance (with blank data) using the `devel-2.4` branch. Saw the changelog attached to the device, as well as `/extras/changelog`. Two questions came up: 1. How do I get my hands on that data? 1. How do I push that data to an external source? (For auditing purposes, change management data really should be logged outside of the thing being audited)
adam commented 2025-12-29 16:33:02 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@pm17788 commented on GitHub (Jun 27, 2018):

@jeremystretch:
It does not seem that the ChangeLog record captures everything.
To wit:
Device creation JSON:

{
  "custom_fields": {
    "LastUpdate": "2018-06-27",
    "OS_Version": "Ubuntu 14.04.5 LTS",
    "bios_date": "2011-01-01",
    "bios_version": "Bochs",
    "cpu_dies": 0,
    "cpus": 0,
    "hdd_count": 0,
    "kernel_version": "4.4.0-128-generic",
    "operational_status": 3,
    "ram_capacity": 64429
  },
  "device_role": 52,
  "device_type": 71,
  "name": "testsystem",
  "serial": "",
  "site": 1,
  "status": 1
}

Whereas the ChangeLog record shows:

{
    "asset_tag": null,
    "cluster": null,
    "comments": "",
    "created": "2018-06-27",
    "device_role": 52,
    "device_type": 71,
    "face": null,
    "last_updated": "2018-06-27T17:46:25.599Z",
    "name": "testsystem",
    "platform": null,
    "position": null,
    "primary_ip4": null,
    "primary_ip6": null,
    "rack": null,
    "serial": "",
    "site": 1,
    "status": 1,
    "tenant": null,
    "vc_position": null,
    "vc_priority": null,
    "virtual_chassis": null
}
@pm17788 commented on GitHub (Jun 27, 2018): @jeremystretch: It does not seem that the ChangeLog record captures everything. To wit: Device creation JSON: ```json { "custom_fields": { "LastUpdate": "2018-06-27", "OS_Version": "Ubuntu 14.04.5 LTS", "bios_date": "2011-01-01", "bios_version": "Bochs", "cpu_dies": 0, "cpus": 0, "hdd_count": 0, "kernel_version": "4.4.0-128-generic", "operational_status": 3, "ram_capacity": 64429 }, "device_role": 52, "device_type": 71, "name": "testsystem", "serial": "", "site": 1, "status": 1 } ``` Whereas the ChangeLog record shows: ```json { "asset_tag": null, "cluster": null, "comments": "", "created": "2018-06-27", "device_role": 52, "device_type": 71, "face": null, "last_updated": "2018-06-27T17:46:25.599Z", "name": "testsystem", "platform": null, "position": null, "primary_ip4": null, "primary_ip6": null, "rack": null, "serial": "", "site": 1, "status": 1, "tenant": null, "vc_position": null, "vc_priority": null, "virtual_chassis": null } ```
adam commented 2025-12-29 16:33:02 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Jun 28, 2018):

Custom fields aren't being captured because it's just using Django's built-in serializer for now. I've been toying with reusing the API serializers for this, but the representation of nested objects gets a little tricky. Although the feature branch has been merged into develop-2.4, I'm still working on this.

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Jun 28, 2018): Custom fields aren't being captured because it's just using Django's built-in serializer for now. I've been toying with reusing the API serializers for this, but the representation of nested objects gets a little tricky. Although the feature branch has been merged into `develop-2.4`, I'm still working on this.
adam commented 2025-12-29 16:33:02 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@lampwins commented on GitHub (Jun 28, 2018):

I will chime in and say I have been investigating #2137 with relation to Date type custom fields and serialization for webhooks. These are related so we might want to look into a particular serialization method to cover both use cases.

@lampwins commented on GitHub (Jun 28, 2018): I will chime in and say I have been investigating #2137 with relation to Date type custom fields and serialization for webhooks. These are related so we might want to look into a particular serialization method to cover both use cases.
adam commented 2025-12-29 16:33:03 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@pm17788 commented on GitHub (Jun 28, 2018):

@jeremystretch: Would you prefer a new issue filed to keep track, or keep it here? What works for your workflow?

@pm17788 commented on GitHub (Jun 28, 2018): @jeremystretch: Would you prefer a new issue filed to keep track, or keep it here? What works for your workflow?
adam commented 2025-12-29 16:33:03 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Jun 29, 2018):

Please do not open issues against anything other than a release. The v2.4 beta has not been released yet.

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Jun 29, 2018): Please do not open issues against anything other than a release. The v2.4 beta has not been released yet.
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
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#1565
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?