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

CSV Export: Add DB Primary Key/ID #2424

New Issue
Closed
opened 2025-12-29 17:25:58 +01:00 by adam · 2 comments
adam commented 2025-12-29 17:25:58 +01:00
Owner
Copy Link

Originally created by @anthonyeden on GitHub (Mar 1, 2019).

Environment

  • Python version: 3.7.2
  • NetBox version: 2.5.7

Proposed Functionality

I would like to add an additional column to every CSV export, to include the database primary key for each row of data exported.

I am also proposing to optionally allow an 'id' column header on CSV Imports. If provided, this would trigger a merge/upsert operation on the matching database row - instead of creating a new record.

I am willing to implement this myself and create a pull request.

Use Case

This would make it easier to export all data from a specific model, make some mass changes in spreadsheet software, and then re-import it and merge the data with the existing records in the database.

Database Changes

N/A

External Dependencies

N/A

Originally created by @anthonyeden on GitHub (Mar 1, 2019). ### Environment * Python version: 3.7.2 * NetBox version: 2.5.7 ### Proposed Functionality I would like to add an additional column to every CSV export, to include the database primary key for each row of data exported. I am also proposing to optionally allow an 'id' column header on CSV Imports. If provided, this would trigger a merge/upsert operation on the matching database row - instead of creating a new record. I am willing to implement this myself and create a pull request. ### Use Case This would make it easier to export all data from a specific model, make some mass changes in spreadsheet software, and then re-import it and merge the data with the existing records in the database. ### Database Changes N/A ### External Dependencies N/A
adam closed this issue 2025-12-29 17:25:58 +01:00
adam commented 2025-12-29 17:25:59 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Mar 1, 2019):

The unique ID assigned to every object is specific to the particular database instance. It is derived from a PostgreSQL sequence and cannot be duplicated or set directly. It's not included in any export because it has no significance outside the local database.

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Mar 1, 2019): The unique ID assigned to every object is specific to the particular database instance. It is derived from a PostgreSQL sequence and cannot be duplicated or set directly. It's not included in any export because it has no significance outside the local database.
adam commented 2025-12-29 17:25:59 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@DouglasHeriot commented on GitHub (Mar 4, 2019):

@jeremystretch When importing IP Addresses, the CSV column "device" can be either "Name or ID". IDs are also used in URLs, so they're already exposed to the user. My thought was as they have a purpose for importing relations and for generating URLs, they would be ok and useful to export.

Imagine that IDs were hidden – the issue I had with using device names for importing IP Addresses was that my names weren’t all unique (only unique per site). Would you recommend that device names are globally unique?

As an example, I have:

  • Region: HIL
  • Site: EPI
  • Device Name: Recorder01

Should I instead structure like:

  • Region: HIL
  • Site: EPI
  • Device Name: HIL-EPI-Recorder01
@DouglasHeriot commented on GitHub (Mar 4, 2019): @jeremystretch When importing IP Addresses, the CSV column "device" can be either "Name or ID". IDs are also used in URLs, so they're already exposed to the user. My thought was as they have a purpose for importing relations and for generating URLs, they would be ok and useful to export. Imagine that IDs were hidden – the issue I had with using device names for importing IP Addresses was that my names weren’t all unique (only unique per site). Would you recommend that device names are globally unique? As an example, I have: - **Region:** HIL - **Site:** EPI - **Device Name:** Recorder01 Should I instead structure like: - **Region:** HIL - **Site:** EPI - **Device Name:** HIL-EPI-Recorder01
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#2424
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?