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

Update Instances to Count in Device-Type Template #2678

New Issue
Closed
opened 2025-12-29 18:21:04 +01:00 by adam · 4 comments
adam commented 2025-12-29 18:21:04 +01:00
Owner
Copy Link

Originally created by @hSaria on GitHub (Jun 21, 2019).

Environment

  • Python version: 3.6.8
  • NetBox version: 2.6.0

The Jinja template should be updated to reflect the recent change of Instance_count to device_count on the Device-Type. It currently still shows Instances.

Steps to Reproduce

  1. Browse to netbox.example.com/dcim/device-types/ or netbox.example.com/dcim/device-types/. They both say Instances when referring to device_count.

Expected Behavior

It'll show Count, Device Count, or Devices, preferably the last one (it'll match the Platforms page).

Observed Behavior

It shows Instances.

Originally created by @hSaria on GitHub (Jun 21, 2019). ### Environment * Python version: 3.6.8 * NetBox version: 2.6.0 The Jinja template should be updated to reflect the recent change of `Instance_count` to `device_count` on the Device-Type. It currently still shows `Instances`. ### Steps to Reproduce 1. Browse to `netbox.example.com/dcim/device-types/` or `netbox.example.com/dcim/device-types/`. They both say `Instances` when referring to `device_count`. ### Expected Behavior It'll show `Count`, `Device Count`, or `Devices`, preferably the last one (it'll match the Platforms page). ### Observed Behavior It shows `Instances`.
adam closed this issue 2025-12-29 18:21:04 +01:00
adam commented 2025-12-29 18:21:05 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@hSaria commented on GitHub (Jun 21, 2019):

If I'm not mistaken, it needs to be updated in the following:

./netbox/dcim/tables.py
./netbox/templates/dcim/devicetype.html

And you might also want to update DEVICETYPE_INSTANCES_TEMPLATE, perhaps to DEVICETYPE_COUNT_TEMPLATE.

@hSaria commented on GitHub (Jun 21, 2019): If I'm not mistaken, it needs to be updated in the following: ``` ./netbox/dcim/tables.py ./netbox/templates/dcim/devicetype.html ``` And you might also want to update `DEVICETYPE_INSTANCES_TEMPLATE`, perhaps to `DEVICETYPE_COUNT_TEMPLATE`.
adam commented 2025-12-29 18:21:05 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@DanSheps commented on GitHub (Jun 24, 2019):

Personally, it doesn't bother me one way or the other. The instance_count property was renamed to device_count for consistency within the API (in my opinion).

However, I have a different preference:

I personally would actually prefer instance, instead of count. I look at it like this, such that a device is a sub of device_type, and each device would be an instance of device_type. Contrast that to things like sites, racks where they are containers for devices and don't directly correspond to devices in a meaningful way

@DanSheps commented on GitHub (Jun 24, 2019): Personally, it doesn't bother me one way or the other. The instance_count property was renamed to device_count for consistency within the API (in my opinion). However, I have a different preference: I personally would actually prefer instance, instead of count. I look at it like this, such that a device is a sub of device_type, and each device would be an instance of device_type. Contrast that to things like sites, racks where they are containers for devices and don't directly correspond to devices in a meaningful way
adam commented 2025-12-29 18:21:05 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@hSaria commented on GitHub (Jun 24, 2019):

Good point. I don’t mind either way. I just thought I’d mention it in case it was missed. If it wasn’t, feel free to close the issue.

On 24 Jun 2019, at 5:36 pm, Daniel Sheppard notifications@github.com wrote:

Personally, it doesn't bother me one way or the other. The instance_count property was renamed to device_count for consistency within the API (in my opinion).

However, I have a different preference:

I personally would actually prefer instance, instead of count. I look at it like this, such that a device is a sub of device_type, and each device would be an instance of device_type. Contrast that to things like sites, racks where they are containers for devices and don't directly correspond to devices in a

—
You are receiving this because you authored the thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or mute the thread.

@hSaria commented on GitHub (Jun 24, 2019): Good point. I don’t mind either way. I just thought I’d mention it in case it was missed. If it wasn’t, feel free to close the issue. > On 24 Jun 2019, at 5:36 pm, Daniel Sheppard <notifications@github.com> wrote: > > Personally, it doesn't bother me one way or the other. The instance_count property was renamed to device_count for consistency within the API (in my opinion). > > However, I have a different preference: > > I personally would actually prefer instance, instead of count. I look at it like this, such that a device is a sub of device_type, and each device would be an instance of device_type. Contrast that to things like sites, racks where they are containers for devices and don't directly correspond to devices in a > > — > You are receiving this because you authored the thread. > Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or mute the thread.
adam commented 2025-12-29 18:21:05 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Jun 24, 2019):

Yeah I'm fine leaving this as-is.

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Jun 24, 2019): Yeah I'm fine leaving this as-is.
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#2678
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?