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

Include inventory items on primary device view #3948

New Issue
Closed
opened 2025-12-29 18:32:13 +01:00 by adam · 5 comments
adam commented 2025-12-29 18:32:13 +01:00
Owner
Copy Link

Originally created by @jeremystretch on GitHub (Aug 5, 2020).

Originally assigned to: @jeremystretch on GitHub.

Environment

  • Python version: 3.6.9
  • NetBox version: 2.9-beta1

Proposed Functionality

Show inventory items on the primary device view, in a table similar to how other components are now displayed.

inventory_tab

Use Case

There is no real need for a separate view, and merging it into the primary device view avoids minor bugs like #4951.

Database Changes

None

External Dependencies

None

Originally created by @jeremystretch on GitHub (Aug 5, 2020). Originally assigned to: @jeremystretch on GitHub. ### Environment * Python version: 3.6.9 * NetBox version: 2.9-beta1 ### Proposed Functionality Show inventory items on the primary device view, in a table similar to how other components are now displayed. ![inventory_tab](https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/13487278/89418959-c7c78380-d6fe-11ea-86b1-ac7ef484f05c.png) ### Use Case There is no real need for a separate view, and merging it into the primary device view avoids minor bugs like #4951. ### Database Changes None ### External Dependencies None
adam added the status: acceptedtype: feature labels 2025-12-29 18:32:13 +01:00
adam closed this issue 2025-12-29 18:32:13 +01:00
adam commented 2025-12-29 18:32:14 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Aug 5, 2020):

I recall now why we've kept it as a separate view: the parent field on InventoryItem is a regular ForeignKey, not an MPTT field, so constructing the hierarchy of nested items is rather inefficient. #1846 was opened a long time ago for this work, but it has yet to be implemented. Now might actually be a good time to take it on, though I haven't yet dug into how involved the migration will be.

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Aug 5, 2020): I recall now why we've kept it as a separate view: the `parent` field on InventoryItem is a regular ForeignKey, not an MPTT field, so constructing the hierarchy of nested items is rather inefficient. #1846 was opened a long time ago for this work, but it has yet to be implemented. Now might actually be a good time to take it on, though I haven't yet dug into how involved the migration will be.
adam commented 2025-12-29 18:32:14 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@a31amit commented on GitHub (Aug 5, 2020):

While merging into the primary device view can be good to avoid such minor bugs. But I personally vote to keep inventory items tab separately where my thoughts are aligned with ease of use/view inventory items. Especially when you have a few custom links added.

with this, when I currently view the inventory tab and wanted to open custom links, these are mostly on the same screen. As part of user experience, it's very easy to open those links, especially when the decision to open links depends on what data is in inventory. Such as links to purchase requests app /other applications.

With proposed functionality, inventory items go very below to Device page, where you can't which server you are adding items can lead to mis-update information if working on multiple pages. Also to view any links, users have to go all the way to top or scroll back to open those links.

Other than this, the inventory items tab currently can be more customized if the user wanted to display any other information, which either not included with core netbox or maybe instance/needs depends, if this is moved, users might not have the choice to that.

@a31amit commented on GitHub (Aug 5, 2020): While merging into the primary device view can be good to avoid such minor bugs. But I personally vote to keep inventory items tab separately where my thoughts are aligned with ease of use/view inventory items. Especially when you have a few custom links added. with this, when I currently view the inventory tab and wanted to open custom links, these are mostly on the same screen. As part of user experience, it's very easy to open those links, especially when the decision to open links depends on what data is in inventory. Such as links to purchase requests app /other applications. With proposed functionality, inventory items go very below to Device page, where you can't which server you are adding items can lead to mis-update information if working on multiple pages. Also to view any links, users have to go all the way to top or scroll back to open those links. Other than this, the inventory items tab currently can be more customized if the user wanted to display any other information, which either not included with core netbox or maybe instance/needs depends, if this is moved, users might not have the choice to that.
adam commented 2025-12-29 18:32:14 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Aug 6, 2020):

Blocked by #1846

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Aug 6, 2020): Blocked by #1846
adam commented 2025-12-29 18:32:14 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Sep 18, 2020):

@a31amit if your concern is primarily just being able to view custom links and the object table at the same time, we can move the device details into a separate sub-tab alongside the components. This would address the UX issue for all components, not just inventory items.

Screenshot_2020-09-18 MyDevice1 - NetBox

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Sep 18, 2020): @a31amit if your concern is primarily just being able to view custom links and the object table at the same time, we can move the device details into a separate sub-tab alongside the components. This would address the UX issue for all components, not just inventory items. ![Screenshot_2020-09-18 MyDevice1 - NetBox](https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/13487278/93615337-415ebc80-f9a1-11ea-91fd-117f8841d137.png)
adam commented 2025-12-29 18:32:14 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@a31amit commented on GitHub (Sep 19, 2020):

@jeremystretch Thanks, This resolves my concerns. Since it doesn't seem to include any breaking changes, would be happy to see this in the next release of netbox rather wait for the 2.10 version.

@a31amit commented on GitHub (Sep 19, 2020): @jeremystretch Thanks, This resolves my concerns. Since it doesn't seem to include any breaking changes, would be happy to see this in the next release of netbox rather wait for the 2.10 version.
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: feature
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#3948
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?