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

Add a rack model number and vendor field into the standard rack data model #2784

New Issue
Closed
opened 2025-12-29 18:22:07 +01:00 by adam · 7 comments
adam commented 2025-12-29 18:22:07 +01:00
Owner
Copy Link

Originally created by @ryanmerolle on GitHub (Aug 6, 2019).

Environment

Python version: 3.6.8
NetBox version: 2.6.2

Proposed Functionality

Add a rack model number and vendor field into the standard rack data model.

Use Case

The vendor field, if it extends the model too much, does not have to be enforced, but it helps if anyone ever wants to create reports to show all assets associated to a vendor across all asset types. If you were to extend the model some more, then you could have a rack type similar to a device type where you would not have to individually set the rack details for every rack,

Originally created by @ryanmerolle on GitHub (Aug 6, 2019). ### Environment Python version: 3.6.8 NetBox version: 2.6.2 ### Proposed Functionality Add a rack model number and vendor field into the standard rack data model. ### Use Case The vendor field, if it extends the model too much, does not have to be enforced, but it helps if anyone ever wants to create reports to show all assets associated to a vendor across all asset types. If you were to extend the model some more, then you could have a rack type similar to a device type where you would not have to individually set the rack details for every rack,
adam closed this issue 2025-12-29 18:22:07 +01:00
adam commented 2025-12-29 18:22:08 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@a31amit commented on GitHub (Aug 6, 2019):

I believe it can be achieve with using custom field which is existing functionality

@a31amit commented on GitHub (Aug 6, 2019): I believe it can be achieve with using custom field which is existing functionality
adam commented 2025-12-29 18:22:08 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@ryanmerolle commented on GitHub (Aug 6, 2019):

Totally, that is what I am doing now. I have a custom field for manufacturers (a selection where I maintain a list of vendors) and a custom field for Part Number (a selection where I maintain a list of models). At least the manufacturers field seems redundant and not able to be linked within the data model for the manufacturers data model.

@ryanmerolle commented on GitHub (Aug 6, 2019): Totally, that is what I am doing now. I have a custom field for manufacturers (a selection where I maintain a list of vendors) and a custom field for Part Number (a selection where I maintain a list of models). At least the manufacturers field seems redundant and not able to be linked within the data model for the manufacturers data model.
adam commented 2025-12-29 18:22:08 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@bcohee commented on GitHub (Aug 28, 2019):

We are also using custom fields for Rack manufacturer, vendor and model
+1 for making it part of dcim/manufacturers/

@bcohee commented on GitHub (Aug 28, 2019): We are also using custom fields for Rack manufacturer, vendor and model +1 for making it part of dcim/manufacturers/
adam commented 2025-12-29 18:22:08 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@bellwood commented on GitHub (Oct 31, 2019):

One could argue pretty much everything physical in Netbox would have a Manufacturer/Model/Serial - Racks, servers, PDU's, breakers, whips, etc.

Might we consider making these fields standard across the model and let custom fields address anything above and beyond?

@bellwood commented on GitHub (Oct 31, 2019): One could argue pretty much everything physical in Netbox would have a Manufacturer/Model/Serial - Racks, servers, PDU's, breakers, whips, etc. Might we consider making these fields standard across the model and let custom fields address anything above and beyond?
adam commented 2025-12-29 18:22:08 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@ryanmerolle commented on GitHub (Nov 11, 2019):

I agree with @bellwood.

@ryanmerolle commented on GitHub (Nov 11, 2019): I agree with @bellwood.
adam commented 2025-12-29 18:22:08 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@ryanmerolle commented on GitHub (Feb 24, 2020):

@jeremystretch do you need more feedback? I would be happy to provide more if so. I also understand if this feature is deprioritized or not in scope. I just ask as I do my pre-spring cleaning.

@ryanmerolle commented on GitHub (Feb 24, 2020): @jeremystretch do you need more feedback? I would be happy to provide more if so. I also understand if this feature is deprioritized or not in scope. I just ask as I do my pre-spring cleaning.
adam commented 2025-12-29 18:22:09 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Feb 25, 2020):

It doesn't look like this has drawn much interest in the six months it's been open. I appreciate the use case but I don't think many network engineers particularly care to track rack models. I'm going to close this out, but maybe we'll revisit the idea in the future once we've taken care of the more pressing backlogged items.

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Feb 25, 2020): It doesn't look like this has drawn much interest in the six months it's been open. I appreciate the use case but I don't think many network engineers particularly care to track rack models. I'm going to close this out, but maybe we'll revisit the idea in the future once we've taken care of the more pressing backlogged items.
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#2784
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?