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

Allow non-custom fields to be required fields #1566

New Issue
Closed
opened 2025-12-29 16:33:01 +01:00 by adam · 3 comments
adam commented 2025-12-29 16:33:01 +01:00
Owner
Copy Link

Originally created by @ryanmerolle on GitHub (Feb 21, 2018).

Issue type

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

Please allow non-custom fields to be required fields

  • This is currently enabled for custom fields, please allow the same in the settings for non-custom fields.
  • This likely requires enhancements to the overall netbox admin tooling and may require foundational work complete here first.
  • This could eventually be important for 3rd party integrations where for example the project or bespoke script wants to take the netbox inventory and execute some function based on the platform of the asset (ie JUNOS, IOS, EOS, etc.).
  • As an example, this would likely help netconfig in requiring users to associate a platform.
Originally created by @ryanmerolle on GitHub (Feb 21, 2018). ### Issue type [x] Feature request <!-- An enhancement of existing functionality --> [ ] Bug report <!-- Unexpected or erroneous behavior --> [ ] Documentation <!-- A modification to the documentation --> Please allow non-custom fields to be required fields - This is currently enabled for custom fields, please allow the same in the settings for non-custom fields. - This likely requires enhancements to the overall netbox admin tooling and may require foundational work complete here first. - This could eventually be important for 3rd party integrations where for example the project or bespoke script wants to take the netbox inventory and execute some function based on the platform of the asset (ie JUNOS, IOS, EOS, etc.). - As an example, this would likely help [netconfig](https://github.com/v1tal3/netconfig) in requiring users to associate a platform.
adam closed this issue 2025-12-29 16:33:01 +01:00
adam commented 2025-12-29 16:33:01 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

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

It's easy to toggle this for custom fields because the field itself is defined as a row in the database, and mandatory status is saved in the required column. For built-in fields, mandatory status depends on a constraint placed on the object's table, and validation is performed at the database layer.

I currently struggle with getting people to consistently assign (optional) prefix roles, so I know where you're coming from, but trying to shimmy in a second layer of validation which allows users to designate arbitrary fields as required seems like a lot more work than it's worth.

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Feb 21, 2018): It's easy to toggle this for custom fields because the field itself is defined as a row in the database, and mandatory status is saved in the `required` column. For built-in fields, mandatory status depends on a constraint placed on the object's table, and validation is performed at the database layer. I currently struggle with getting people to consistently assign (optional) prefix roles, so I know where you're coming from, but trying to shimmy in a second layer of validation which allows users to designate arbitrary fields as required seems like a lot more work than it's worth.
adam commented 2025-12-29 16:33:01 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

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

Yea I get the issue, I would have figured the data model for built-in fields would eventually be more streamlined to the way custom fields are setup.

I should have looked at the data model, but I just fired the issue out. There are likely bigger ROIs at this point.

@ryanmerolle commented on GitHub (Feb 21, 2018): Yea I get the issue, I would have figured the data model for built-in fields would eventually be more streamlined to the way custom fields are setup. I should have looked at the data model, but I just fired the issue out. There are likely bigger ROIs at this point.
adam commented 2025-12-29 16:33:02 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

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

I'm going to close this out as I think it would amount to a major feature request and we've already got quite the backlog, but I'll keep it in the back of my mind moving forward in case an opportunity presents itself.

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Feb 21, 2018): I'm going to close this out as I think it would amount to a major feature request and we've already got quite the backlog, but I'll keep it in the back of my mind moving forward in case an opportunity presents itself.
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
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#1566
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?