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

Tenancy for Power Feeds #2785

New Issue
Closed
opened 2025-12-29 18:22:09 +01:00 by adam · 2 comments
adam commented 2025-12-29 18:22:09 +01:00
Owner
Copy Link

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

Environment

  • Python version: 2.7.5
  • NetBox version: 2.6.1

Proposed Functionality

It would be helpful if power feeds could be assigned to tenants and groups too.

Use Case

Devices and racks can be dedicated to a customer, and often customers have a dedicated powerfeeds too where they can plug in their devices.

Database Changes

Add tentants/tenant group information to powerfeeds and -panels.

External Dependencies

Originally created by @Bitsky on GitHub (Aug 6, 2019). ### Environment * Python version: 2.7.5 * NetBox version: 2.6.1 ### Proposed Functionality It would be helpful if power feeds could be assigned to tenants and groups too. ### Use Case Devices and racks can be dedicated to a customer, and often customers have a dedicated powerfeeds too where they can plug in their devices. ### Database Changes Add tentants/tenant group information to powerfeeds and -panels. ### External Dependencies
adam closed this issue 2025-12-29 18:22:09 +01:00
adam commented 2025-12-29 18:22:09 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

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

My .02

From a facility perspective, no tenant would ever be able to manage a power panel, breaker or whip. Sure I may hand a client a whip they can plug a PDU or device into, but, they cannot manage it (energize/de-energize) Things outside a tenants control should remain outside of their tenancy.

Today, creating a power feed already has a rack relationship, racks that have tenancy attributes and those racks have devices that also have tenancy attributes.

What does adding tenancy to power feeds and panels add that existing relationships does not already achieve/solve?

@bellwood commented on GitHub (Oct 31, 2019): My .02 From a facility perspective, no tenant would ever be able to manage a power panel, breaker or whip. Sure I may hand a client a whip they can plug a PDU or device into, but, they cannot manage it (energize/de-energize) Things outside a tenants control should remain outside of their tenancy. Today, creating a power feed already has a rack relationship, racks that have tenancy attributes and those racks have devices that also have tenancy attributes. What does adding tenancy to power feeds and panels add that existing relationships does not already achieve/solve?
adam commented 2025-12-29 18:22:09 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Dec 13, 2019):

I agree with @bellwood, I don't think this makes sense given how NetBox uses the concept of tenancy. And even if you have actual power feeds that are dedicate to a specific tenant, that assignment can be conveyed by assigned the attached PDU (of which there can only be one) to that tenant. Tenant assignment can be used on the associated rack as well.

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Dec 13, 2019): I agree with @bellwood, I don't think this makes sense given how NetBox uses the concept of tenancy. And even if you have actual power feeds that are dedicate to a specific tenant, that assignment can be conveyed by assigned the attached PDU (of which there can only be one) to that tenant. Tenant assignment can be used on the associated rack as well.
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#2785
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?