starred/netbox
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/netbox-community/netbox.git synced 2026-01-13 13:53:31 +01:00
Code Issues 273 Packages Projects Releases 10 Wiki Activity

Deleting DeviceType with Component raises DeviceType.DoesNotExist exception #3150

New Issue
Closed
opened 2025-12-29 18:26:07 +01:00 by adam · 3 comments
adam commented 2025-12-29 18:26:07 +01:00
Owner
Copy Link

Originally created by @rodvand on GitHub (Jan 13, 2020).

Originally assigned to: @jeremystretch on GitHub.

Environment

  • Python version: 3.6.8
  • NetBox version: 2.6.11

Steps to Reproduce

  1. Create a Device Type
  2. Add any component to the device type template (example two Power ports)
  3. Delete the Device Type

Expected Behavior

The Device Type to be deleted and being redirected to the Device Type list.

Observed Behavior

The Device Type is deleted, but an exception is raised:

<class 'dcim.models.DeviceType.DoesNotExist'>

DeviceType matching query does not exist.

The URL with the exception is https://netbox-server/dcim/device-types/3/delete/

It seems like deleting the device type components are trying to redirect to the Device Type after deletion, but the Device Type has already been deleted. So some way of differentiating the return_url when deleting the Device Type (which includes deleting all components) contra when deleting only components from the Device Type is needed.

Originally created by @rodvand on GitHub (Jan 13, 2020). Originally assigned to: @jeremystretch on GitHub. <!-- NOTE: This form is only for reproducible bugs. If you need assistance with NetBox installation, or if you have a general question, DO NOT open an issue. Instead, post to our mailing list: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/netbox-discuss Please describe the environment in which you are running NetBox. Be sure that you are running an unmodified instance of the latest stable release before submitting a bug report. --> ### Environment * Python version: 3.6.8 * NetBox version: 2.6.11 <!-- Describe in detail the exact steps that someone else can take to reproduce this bug using the current stable release of NetBox (or the current beta release where applicable). Begin with the creation of any necessary database objects and call out every operation being performed explicitly. If reporting a bug in the REST API, be sure to reconstruct the raw HTTP request(s) being made: Don't rely on a wrapper like pynetbox. --> ### Steps to Reproduce 1. Create a Device Type 2. Add any component to the device type template (example two Power ports) 3. Delete the Device Type <!-- What did you expect to happen? --> ### Expected Behavior The Device Type to be deleted and being redirected to the Device Type list. <!-- What happened instead? --> ### Observed Behavior The Device Type is deleted, but an exception is raised: ``` <class 'dcim.models.DeviceType.DoesNotExist'> DeviceType matching query does not exist. ``` The URL with the exception is https://netbox-server/dcim/device-types/3/delete/ It seems like deleting the device type components are trying to redirect to the Device Type after deletion, but the Device Type has already been deleted. So some way of differentiating the `return_url ` when deleting the Device Type (which includes deleting all components) contra when deleting only components from the Device Type is needed.
adam added the type: bugstatus: accepted labels 2025-12-29 18:26:07 +01:00
adam closed this issue 2025-12-29 18:26:08 +01:00
adam commented 2025-12-29 18:26:08 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Jan 13, 2020):

The root issue here is that the component template(s) are being deleted after the parent device type. When NetBox attempts to record a changelog entry for the deletion of the component templates, an exception is raised because the parent DeviceType instance no longer exists. Other models in NetBox (e.g. devices) appear to be affected by this bug as well.

I'll need to take more time to dig into this. It's not sufficient to simply nullify the parent field as we need to ensure the relationship is recorded in the changelog.

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Jan 13, 2020): The root issue here is that the component template(s) are being deleted after the parent device type. When NetBox attempts to record a changelog entry for the deletion of the component templates, an exception is raised because the parent DeviceType instance no longer exists. Other models in NetBox (e.g. devices) appear to be affected by this bug as well. I'll need to take more time to dig into this. It's not sufficient to simply nullify the parent field as we need to ensure the relationship is recorded in the changelog.
adam commented 2025-12-29 18:26:08 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@hSaria commented on GitHub (Jan 13, 2020):

By that, you're also referring to other instances of ObjectChange, right?

@hSaria commented on GitHub (Jan 13, 2020): By that, you're also referring to other instances of `ObjectChange`, right?
adam commented 2025-12-29 18:26:08 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Jan 13, 2020):

What I mean is that the ObjectChange that gets created in response to the deletion of a component template must be associated with the template's parent DeviceType.

This is assuming we continue recording ObjectChanges for related items during deletion events. I've been wondering lately if there's any real reason to do so. Omitting them would greatly speed up deletion actions where there are many related objects (e.g. deleting a device with hundreds of interfaces). That's a separate discussion though.

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Jan 13, 2020): What I mean is that the ObjectChange that gets created in response to the deletion of a component template must be associated with the template's parent DeviceType. This is assuming we continue recording ObjectChanges for related items during deletion events. I've been wondering lately if there's any real reason to do so. Omitting them would greatly speed up deletion actions where there are many related objects (e.g. deleting a device with hundreds of interfaces). That's a separate discussion though.
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 status: accepted type: bug
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#3150
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?