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

Permissions constraints are not applied to rack count within a rack group or rack role #4494

New Issue
Closed
opened 2025-12-29 18:36:36 +01:00 by adam · 5 comments
adam commented 2025-12-29 18:36:36 +01:00
Owner
Copy Link

Originally created by @cpmills1975 on GitHub (Jan 26, 2021).

Environment

  • Python version: 3.9
  • NetBox version: 2.10.3

Steps to Reproduce

  1. Create a rack group (rackgroup_a)
  2. Create two racks (name "rack_a" and "rack_b") and add them to the group (rackgroup_a)
  3. Create a permissions rule that grants view permissions on dcim > rack, but limit the racks visible to just one of the racks with a suitable constraint e.g. { "name": "rack_a" }
  4. Create a permissions rule that grants view permissions on dcim > rack_group
  5. View the list of rack groups /dcim/rack-groups
  6. Observe the number of racks in rackgroup_a is 2
  7. Click on rackgroup_a to view the list of racks in the group
  8. Observe that only one rack (rack_a) is shown

Expected Behavior

/dcim/rack-groups should show rackgroup_a with only one rack

Observed Behavior

rackgroup_a appears to have two racks (as it really does), but the test user can only see one.

Originally created by @cpmills1975 on GitHub (Jan 26, 2021). <!-- NOTE: IF YOUR ISSUE DOES NOT FOLLOW THIS TEMPLATE, IT WILL BE CLOSED. This form is only for reporting reproducible bugs. If you need assistance with NetBox installation, or if you have a general question, please start a discussion instead: https://github.com/netbox-community/netbox/discussions 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, and that any plugins have been disabled. --> ### Environment * Python version: 3.9 * NetBox version: 2.10.3 <!-- Describe in detail the exact steps that someone else can take to reproduce this bug using the current stable release of NetBox. 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 client library such as pynetbox. --> ### Steps to Reproduce 1. Create a rack group (rackgroup_a) 2. Create two racks (name "rack_a" and "rack_b") and add them to the group (rackgroup_a) 3. Create a permissions rule that grants view permissions on dcim > rack, but limit the racks visible to just one of the racks with a suitable constraint e.g. { "name": "rack_a" } 4. Create a permissions rule that grants view permissions on dcim > rack_group 5. View the list of rack groups /dcim/rack-groups 6. Observe the number of racks in rackgroup_a is 2 7. Click on rackgroup_a to view the list of racks in the group 8. Observe that only one rack (rack_a) is shown <!-- What did you expect to happen? --> ### Expected Behavior /dcim/rack-groups should show rackgroup_a with only one rack <!-- What happened instead? --> ### Observed Behavior rackgroup_a appears to have two racks (as it really does), but the test user can only see one.
adam added the pending closure label 2025-12-29 18:36:36 +01:00
adam closed this issue 2025-12-29 18:36:36 +01:00
adam commented 2025-12-29 18:36:36 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@cpmills1975 commented on GitHub (Jan 26, 2021):

It seems this also applies to rack roles

@cpmills1975 commented on GitHub (Jan 26, 2021): It seems this also applies to rack roles
adam commented 2025-12-29 18:36:37 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Jan 26, 2021):

It's not really feasible to limit the counts of related objects in the proposed manner, as it would require a separate database query for each object. The purpose of object-based permissions in NetBox is to control who can access and modify individual objects, not to obscure their existence entirely.

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Jan 26, 2021): It's not really feasible to limit the counts of related objects in the proposed manner, as it would require a separate database query for each object. The purpose of object-based permissions in NetBox is to control who can access and modify individual objects, not to obscure their existence entirely.
adam commented 2025-12-29 18:36:37 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@pvinci commented on GitHub (Jan 26, 2021):

I see permissions as being orthogonal to this issue. In my mind, permissions are actions that are granted; A level-1 tech can view but not modify an object. This seems like a problem of filtering the objects that a given set of permissions apply to.

In openstack, for example, a user selects a tenant to limit the scope of the objects, and the permissions specify what actions can be taken for the scope of objects.

@pvinci commented on GitHub (Jan 26, 2021): I see permissions as being orthogonal to this issue. In my mind, permissions are actions that are granted; A level-1 tech can view but not modify an object. This seems like a problem of filtering the objects that a given set of permissions apply to. In openstack, for example, a user selects a tenant to limit the scope of the objects, and the permissions specify what actions can be taken for the scope of objects.
adam commented 2025-12-29 18:36:37 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@stale[bot] commented on GitHub (Mar 26, 2021):

This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed if no further activity occurs. NetBox is governed by a small group of core maintainers which means not all opened issues may receive direct feedback. Please see our contributing guide.

@stale[bot] commented on GitHub (Mar 26, 2021): This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed if no further activity occurs. NetBox is governed by a small group of core maintainers which means not all opened issues may receive direct feedback. Please see our [contributing guide](https://github.com/netbox-community/netbox/blob/develop/CONTRIBUTING.md).
adam commented 2025-12-29 18:36:37 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@github-actions[bot] commented on GitHub (Apr 14, 2021):

This issue has been automatically closed due to lack of activity. In an effort to reduce noise, please do not comment any further. Note that the core maintainers may elect to reopen this issue at a later date if deemed necessary.

@github-actions[bot] commented on GitHub (Apr 14, 2021): This issue has been automatically closed due to lack of activity. In an effort to reduce noise, please do not comment any further. Note that the core maintainers may elect to reopen this issue at a later date if deemed necessary.
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 pending closure
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#4494
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?