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

Tenants should be ordered only by name. #3510

New Issue
Closed
opened 2025-12-29 18:29:34 +01:00 by adam · 3 comments
adam commented 2025-12-29 18:29:34 +01:00
Owner
Copy Link

Originally created by @ebusto on GitHub (Mar 26, 2020).

Environment

  • Python version: 3.6.9
  • NetBox version: 2.7.10

Proposed Functionality

Rather than order tenants by ['group', 'name'], they should simply be ordered by ['name'].

Use Case

Given the way tenants show up in UI elements, such as the tenant table and form inputs, they appear essentially unordered unless a tenant group is selected first.

It would be cleaner if they were simply ordered by name.

Database Changes

A simple model change.

External Dependencies

None

Originally created by @ebusto on GitHub (Mar 26, 2020). ### Environment * Python version: 3.6.9 * NetBox version: 2.7.10 ### Proposed Functionality Rather than order tenants by `['group', 'name']`, they should simply be ordered by `['name']`. ### Use Case Given the way tenants show up in UI elements, such as the tenant table and form inputs, they appear essentially unordered unless a tenant group is selected first. It would be cleaner if they were simply ordered by `name`. ### Database Changes A simple model change. ### External Dependencies None
adam closed this issue 2025-12-29 18:29:34 +01:00
adam commented 2025-12-29 18:29:35 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Mar 27, 2020):

they appear essentially unordered unless a tenant group is selected first.

They are ordered by group by default, which makes far more sense in most use cases. If you want to order them by name, you have the option of doing so. This ordering has been in place for years, and I see no reason to change it.

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Mar 27, 2020): > they appear essentially unordered unless a tenant group is selected first. They are ordered by group by default, which makes far more sense in most use cases. If you want to order them by name, you have the option of doing so. This ordering has been in place for years, and I see no reason to change it.
adam commented 2025-12-29 18:29:35 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@ebusto commented on GitHub (Mar 27, 2020):

I suspect you're referring to the list of tenants, presented in table form. Sure, I could click on the "name" column to reorder, but typically data presented in tabular format is ordered by the first column, in ascending order, by default. Not the second column.

There are some UI elements where ordering tenants by name is not possible, such as when performing bulk updates of VMs and devices. Filtering by tenant group in the bulk update form is not possible, so you're stuck hunting through an unordered list.

For other forms that allow tenant filtering by tenant group, tenants should still be displayed in order by default. They'll still be ordered when the tenant list is revised if a tenant group is selected.

I'm simply arguing for NetBox to adhere to UI best practices. Just because it has worked the way it does for years isn't a valid reason to dismiss a suggestion. I've definitely become blind to warts in software I've been hacking away at for years; it happens.

@ebusto commented on GitHub (Mar 27, 2020): I suspect you're referring to the list of tenants, presented in table form. Sure, I could click on the "name" column to reorder, but typically data presented in tabular format is ordered by the first column, in ascending order, by default. Not the second column. There are some UI elements where ordering tenants by name is not possible, such as when performing bulk updates of VMs and devices. Filtering by tenant group in the bulk update form is not possible, so you're stuck hunting through an unordered list. For other forms that allow tenant filtering by tenant group, tenants should still be displayed in order by default. They'll still be ordered when the tenant list is revised if a tenant group is selected. I'm simply arguing for NetBox to adhere to UI best practices. Just because it has worked the way it does for years isn't a valid reason to dismiss a suggestion. I've definitely become blind to warts in software I've been hacking away at for years; it happens.
adam commented 2025-12-29 18:29:35 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Mar 27, 2020):

I'm simply arguing for NetBox to adhere to UI best practices.

It's not best practice, it's merely your opinion. For my use cases, and I suspect many others, it would be extremely irritating to receive by default a list intermingling customers, internal organizations, and miscellaneous other groups.

Once #3294 is in place, you might be able to save your preferred ordering. But we're not going to change the database-level ordering that is currently in place.

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Mar 27, 2020): > I'm simply arguing for NetBox to adhere to UI best practices. It's not best practice, it's merely your opinion. For my use cases, and I suspect many others, it would be extremely irritating to receive by default a list intermingling customers, internal organizations, and miscellaneous other groups. Once #3294 is in place, you might be able to save your preferred ordering. But we're not going to change the database-level ordering that is currently in place.
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#3510
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?