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

Standardize approach for counting related object in object lists #3868

New Issue
Closed
opened 2025-12-29 18:31:41 +01:00 by adam · 3 comments
adam commented 2025-12-29 18:31:41 +01:00
Owner
Copy Link

Originally created by @jeremystretch on GitHub (Jul 17, 2020).

Originally assigned to: @jeremystretch on GitHub.

Proposed Changes

Identify and employ a standardized approach for all instances where each object within a list must include a count of one or more related objects. In some cases, we use Count(), but in others we use subqueries. We should pick one and ensure a consistent approach is used throughout the application.

Justification

Provides consistency in queryset definitions and avoids bugs that might result from divergent implementations.

Originally created by @jeremystretch on GitHub (Jul 17, 2020). Originally assigned to: @jeremystretch on GitHub. ### Proposed Changes Identify and employ a standardized approach for all instances where each object within a list must include a count of one or more related objects. In some cases, we use `Count()`, but in others we use subqueries. We should pick one and ensure a consistent approach is used throughout the application. ### Justification Provides consistency in queryset definitions and avoids bugs that might result from divergent implementations.
adam added the status: under reviewtype: housekeeping labels 2025-12-29 18:31:41 +01:00
adam closed this issue 2025-12-29 18:31:41 +01:00
adam commented 2025-12-29 18:31:41 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Jul 17, 2020):

Marking this as blocked until we have a better idea whether we can support cache invalidation for subqueries (see Suor/django-cacheops#365).

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Jul 17, 2020): Marking this as blocked until we have a better idea whether we can support cache invalidation for subqueries (see Suor/django-cacheops#365).
adam commented 2025-12-29 18:31:41 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Jul 20, 2020):

While it looks like we may be able to work on this limitation upstream, we won't be able to do that in time for the v2.9 beta release. I'd really prefer to move to Django 3.1 now; if we wait, it'll have to be until the v2.10 release much later this year.

For now, we can append a manual order_by() method to the affected querysets to preserve the existing ordering. This can be reversed in the future once we've secured caching support for subqueries.

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Jul 20, 2020): While it looks like we may be able to work on this limitation upstream, we won't be able to do that in time for the v2.9 beta release. I'd really prefer to move to Django 3.1 now; if we wait, it'll have to be until the v2.10 release much later this year. For now, we can append a manual `order_by()` method to the affected querysets to preserve the existing ordering. This can be reversed in the future once we've secured caching support for subqueries.
adam commented 2025-12-29 18:31:41 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@lampwins commented on GitHub (Oct 25, 2020):

@jeremystretch now that cacheops 5.1.0 has been released I assume our stance on this will be to always use subqueries?

@lampwins commented on GitHub (Oct 25, 2020): @jeremystretch now that cacheops 5.1.0 has been released I assume our stance on this will be to always use subqueries?
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: under review type: housekeeping
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#3868
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?