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

Support for Journal Entry with Bulk Update #4749

New Issue
Closed
opened 2025-12-29 19:20:05 +01:00 by adam · 4 comments
adam commented 2025-12-29 19:20:05 +01:00
Owner
Copy Link

Originally created by @a31amit on GitHub (Apr 10, 2021).

NetBox version

v2.11.0-beta1

Feature type

New functionality

Proposed functionality

Currently, a journal entry has to be added or create on each device. but this might lead to so much repeat of work for users when they wanted to add the same journal entries associated with multiple devices.

for example of a journal entry - "Change request ID - XXXXXX for OS upgrade "
here change request could include 1 or more servers if users have to add this for 1 device which is fine but if there are more than 1, this became a lot of repeat work for them.

While I know that 2.11 is still in beta, however, I believe this feature would be worth including in netbox.

Use case

Having a feature to associate the same journal entry with multiple devices would ease users where multiple devices should have the same journal entry.

Feature to add a journal entry with a selection of bulk devices on primary models at least would help users with avoid lot of repeat work.

Database changes

I believe no but core maintainers would have a better understanding.

External dependencies

No response

Originally created by @a31amit on GitHub (Apr 10, 2021). ### NetBox version v2.11.0-beta1 ### Feature type New functionality ### Proposed functionality Currently, a journal entry has to be added or create on each device. but this might lead to so much repeat of work for users when they wanted to add the same journal entries associated with multiple devices. for example of a journal entry - "Change request ID - XXXXXX for OS upgrade " here change request could include 1 or more servers if users have to add this for 1 device which is fine but if there are more than 1, this became a lot of repeat work for them. While I know that 2.11 is still in beta, however, I believe this feature would be worth including in netbox. ### Use case Having a feature to associate the same journal entry with multiple devices would ease users where multiple devices should have the same journal entry. Feature to add a journal entry with a selection of bulk devices on primary models at least would help users with avoid lot of repeat work. ### Database changes I believe no but core maintainers would have a better understanding. ### External dependencies _No response_
adam added the type: featurepending closure labels 2025-12-29 19:20:05 +01:00
adam closed this issue 2025-12-29 19:20:05 +01:00
adam commented 2025-12-29 19:20:06 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Apr 11, 2021):

The motivation behind introducing this feature was to support recording notes which are unique to individual objects. As soon as you find yourself wanting to apply the same note to multiple objects, this is a sign that you should have a structured system in place to handle this data. Remember, journal entries are just free-form notes: They aren't a good candidate for recording things like planned software updates (as implied by your use case), because you likely want to record things like the OS version in some structured format.

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Apr 11, 2021): The motivation behind introducing this feature was to support recording notes which are _unique_ to individual objects. As soon as you find yourself wanting to apply the same note to multiple objects, this is a sign that you should have a structured system in place to handle this data. Remember, journal entries are just free-form notes: They aren't a good candidate for recording things like planned software updates (as implied by your use case), because you likely want to record things like the OS version in some structured format.
adam commented 2025-12-29 19:20:06 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@a31amit commented on GitHub (Apr 15, 2021):

This is true if user document those exact os version, May be my example doesn’t show the proper need here.

However in enterprise, its standard practice to open changerequest or task that require same nature of small or large work on multiple hosts.

With that it’s makes to just a standard change or tasks ID with same comments.

Another better examples could be -

  • if user just updated a single package under the task, we don’t needed version to mentioned in netbox as it’s document under the task but same task or comment reference back to multiple host that were included in this task. Even if users wants to know their package version it can be other source than netbox.

  • now another task where we swapped server rack unit on multiple server, we can document exact change in netbox device model. But everything was under same task or changerequest so for those there is no different needed to make journal entry unique of specific because model show their current RU but just task ID needed to be added in journal entry.

The whole point here is in day-to-day work there are many edge cases when similar journal entry would be users correct intention but to allow users to make bulk updates on multiple servers where it needed. There is no restriction if someone would be doing same thing by using api or loop over multiple server to put same journal entry comment . But it would be ease on web ui. That been said I don’t need this on api bulk just in web user interface.

@a31amit commented on GitHub (Apr 15, 2021): This is true if user document those exact os version, May be my example doesn’t show the proper need here. However in enterprise, its standard practice to open changerequest or task that require same nature of small or large work on multiple hosts. With that it’s makes to just a standard change or tasks ID with same comments. Another better examples could be - - if user just updated a single package under the task, we don’t needed version to mentioned in netbox as it’s document under the task but same task or comment reference back to multiple host that were included in this task. Even if users wants to know their package version it can be other source than netbox. - now another task where we swapped server rack unit on multiple server, we can document exact change in netbox device model. But everything was under same task or changerequest so for those there is no different needed to make journal entry unique of specific because model show their current RU but just task ID needed to be added in journal entry. The whole point here is in day-to-day work there are many edge cases when similar journal entry would be users correct intention but to allow users to make bulk updates on multiple servers where it needed. There is no restriction if someone would be doing same thing by using api or loop over multiple server to put same journal entry comment . But it would be ease on web ui. That been said I don’t need this on api bulk just in web user interface.
adam commented 2025-12-29 19:20:06 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@github-actions[bot] commented on GitHub (Jun 15, 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.

@github-actions[bot] commented on GitHub (Jun 15, 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 19:20:07 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@github-actions[bot] commented on GitHub (Jul 16, 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 (Jul 16, 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 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#4749
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?