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 option to assign a Rack in bulk edit #3401

New Issue
Closed
opened 2025-12-29 18:28:46 +01:00 by adam · 3 comments
adam commented 2025-12-29 18:28:46 +01:00
Owner
Copy Link

Originally created by @33Fraise33 on GitHub (Feb 25, 2020).

Environment

  • Python version: /
  • NetBox version: 2.7.3

Proposed Functionality

Add the option when editing multiple devices to assign a Rack to them. Face and Unit are optional items so I think it should be possible to add this in the bulk edit.

Use Case

When moving multiple devices from one location to another it comes in handy to be able to move lots of devices to a rack at a time.

Database Changes

None I can think of, frontend change.

External Dependencies

/

Originally created by @33Fraise33 on GitHub (Feb 25, 2020). ### Environment * Python version: / * NetBox version: 2.7.3 ### Proposed Functionality Add the option when editing multiple devices to assign a Rack to them. Face and Unit are optional items so I think it should be possible to add this in the bulk edit. ### Use Case When moving multiple devices from one location to another it comes in handy to be able to move lots of devices to a rack at a time. ### Database Changes None I can think of, frontend change. ## External Dependencies /
adam closed this issue 2025-12-29 18:28:46 +01:00
adam commented 2025-12-29 18:28:46 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Feb 26, 2020):

We've considered this in the past, but there are a number of validation issues such that the feature is useful only when none of the devices have a position or face assigned. For example, moving two devices each in their own rack in position 10 to a single new rack will obviously fail, as both devices cannot exist in the same position. (And we can't simply nullify the assigned positions because that can lead to unexpected results; such as if the user didn't realize the devices were in the same position.)

What I'm getting at is that if we implement the feature, it's often not going to work as expected and users will become frustrated.

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Feb 26, 2020): We've considered this in the past, but there are a number of validation issues such that the feature is useful only when none of the devices have a position or face assigned. For example, moving two devices each in their own rack in position 10 to a single new rack will obviously fail, as both devices cannot exist in the same position. (And we can't simply nullify the assigned positions because that can lead to unexpected results; such as if the user didn't realize the devices were in the same position.) What I'm getting at is that if we implement the feature, it's often _not_ going to work as expected and users will become frustrated.
adam commented 2025-12-29 18:28:46 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@33Fraise33 commented on GitHub (Feb 26, 2020):

It might be an option to move those 2 devices into the new rack but then not racked. Moving non racked to non racked is the main use case here.

For us this is the main use case but I understand that this is not the only use case out there. It might be an option to give a popup in case of conflichts. An other nice option would be to be able to 'edit' a rack and drag and drop devices onto a rack unit (front or back). Saving fills in all the rack units on the devices. (This might be another feature request but together might be a good solution)

@33Fraise33 commented on GitHub (Feb 26, 2020): It might be an option to move those 2 devices into the new rack but then not racked. Moving non racked to non racked is the main use case here. For us this is the main use case but I understand that this is not the only use case out there. It might be an option to give a popup in case of conflichts. An other nice option would be to be able to 'edit' a rack and drag and drop devices onto a rack unit (front or back). Saving fills in all the rack units on the devices. (This might be another feature request but together might be a good solution)
adam commented 2025-12-29 18:28:46 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Jun 15, 2020):

Passing on this proposal as there have been no further comments and IMO it's likely to cause more problems than it solves. It might be easier to address in the future once we've adopted a fully API-driven front end.

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Jun 15, 2020): Passing on this proposal as there have been no further comments and IMO it's likely to cause more problems than it solves. It might be easier to address in the future once we've adopted a fully API-driven front end.
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#3401
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?