starred/netbox
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/netbox-community/netbox.git synced 2026-01-13 22:03:32 +01:00
Code Issues 273 Packages Projects Releases 10 Wiki Activity

Add 'created' and 'last_updated' attributes to virtualization component models #4815

New Issue
Closed
opened 2025-12-29 19:20:53 +01:00 by adam · 3 comments
adam commented 2025-12-29 19:20:53 +01:00
Owner
Copy Link

Originally created by @bb-Ricardo on GitHub (Apr 23, 2021).

NetBox version

v2.11.1

Feature type

Data model extension

Proposed functionality

Add created and last_updated attributes to virtualization models.

See: #5369 and #5901

Use case

I use Netbox as source for our monitoring system. There it is important to get interface data for all interfaces of Device/VM. In order to avoid requesting all interfaces of all devices/VMs a caching was implemented to get only interface objects which have changed since last request cycle. This works pretty well for devices, VMs and IP addresses but interfaces don't support these fields. Our NetBox instance contains thousends of interfaces and retreiving them all takes a long time.

This change would speed up the reading of interface data by A LOT.

Database changes

Yes. Adding 'created' and 'last_updated' to all virtualization models would be necessary.

External dependencies

None

Originally created by @bb-Ricardo on GitHub (Apr 23, 2021). ### NetBox version v2.11.1 ### Feature type Data model extension ### Proposed functionality Add `created` and `last_updated` attributes to `virtualization` models. See: #5369 and #5901 ### Use case I use Netbox as source for our monitoring system. There it is important to get interface data for all interfaces of Device/VM. In order to avoid requesting all interfaces of all devices/VMs a caching was implemented to get only interface objects which have changed since last request cycle. This works pretty well for devices, VMs and IP addresses but interfaces don't support these fields. Our NetBox instance contains thousends of interfaces and retreiving them all takes a long time. This change would speed up the reading of interface data by A LOT. ### Database changes Yes. Adding 'created' and 'last_updated' to all virtualization models would be necessary. ### External dependencies None
adam added the type: feature label 2025-12-29 19:20:53 +01:00
adam closed this issue 2025-12-29 19:20:53 +01:00
adam commented 2025-12-29 19:20:54 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Apr 23, 2021):

These fields already exist on these models. What specific change(s) are you proposing?

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Apr 23, 2021): These fields already exist on these models. What specific change(s) are you proposing?
adam commented 2025-12-29 19:20:54 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@bb-Ricardo commented on GitHub (Apr 23, 2021):

Hi, Jeremy.

Yes, you are correct. I found the Issue.

is the attribute filter "last_updated__gte" supported for data models with the "last_updated" attribute?

I used following query /api/dcim/interfaces/?last_updated__gte=2021-04-23T14:08:37.536301Z and it returned interfaces like this example:

{
    "id": 8801,
    "url": "https://example.com/api/dcim/interfaces/8801/",
    "display": "ge-0",
    "device": {
        "id": 480,
        "url": "https://example.com/api/dcim/devices/480/",
        "display": "1000",
        "name": "1000",
        "display_name": "1000"
    },
    "name": "ge-0",
    "label": "",
    "type": {
        "value": "1000base-t",
        "label": "1000BASE-T (1GE)"
    },
    "enabled": true,
    "parent": null,
    "lag": null,
    "mtu": null,
    "mac_address": "AA:BB:CC:DD:EE:FF",
    "mgmt_only": false,
    "description": "",
    "mode": null,
    "untagged_vlan": null,
    "tagged_vlans": [],
    "mark_connected": false,
    "cable": {
        "id": 1548,
        "url": "https://example.com/api/dcim/cables/1548/",
        "display": "#1548",
        "label": ""
    },
    "cable_peer": {
        "id": 8277,
        "url": "https://example.com/api/dcim/interfaces/8277/",
        "display": "ge-0/0/0",
        "device": {
            "id": 472,
            "url": "https://example.com/api/dcim/devices/472/",
            "display": "juEX34-04",
            "name": "juEX34-04",
            "display_name": "juEX34-04"
        },
        "name": "ge-0/0/0",
        "cable": 1548,
        "_occupied": true
    },
    "cable_peer_type": "dcim.interface",
    "connected_endpoint": {
        "id": 8277,
        "url": "https://example.com/api/dcim/interfaces/8277/",
        "display": "ge-0/0/0",
        "device": {
            "id": 472,
            "url": "https://example.com/api/dcim/devices/472/",
            "display": "juEX34-04",
            "name": "juEX34-04",
            "display_name": "juEX34-04"
        },
        "name": "ge-0/0/0",
        "cable": 1548,
        "_occupied": true
    },
    "connected_endpoint_type": "dcim.interface",
    "connected_endpoint_reachable": true,
    "tags": [],
    "custom_fields": {},
    "created": "2021-04-23",
    "last_updated": "2021-04-23T10:21:19.028563Z",
    "count_ipaddresses": 0,
    "_occupied": true
}

I tested it for virtualization.interfaces and there it works as expected.

Should I file a new bug for this?

@bb-Ricardo commented on GitHub (Apr 23, 2021): Hi, Jeremy. Yes, you are correct. I found the Issue. is the attribute filter "last_updated__gte" supported for data models with the "last_updated" attribute? I used following query `/api/dcim/interfaces/?last_updated__gte=2021-04-23T14:08:37.536301Z` and it returned interfaces like this example: ```json { "id": 8801, "url": "https://example.com/api/dcim/interfaces/8801/", "display": "ge-0", "device": { "id": 480, "url": "https://example.com/api/dcim/devices/480/", "display": "1000", "name": "1000", "display_name": "1000" }, "name": "ge-0", "label": "", "type": { "value": "1000base-t", "label": "1000BASE-T (1GE)" }, "enabled": true, "parent": null, "lag": null, "mtu": null, "mac_address": "AA:BB:CC:DD:EE:FF", "mgmt_only": false, "description": "", "mode": null, "untagged_vlan": null, "tagged_vlans": [], "mark_connected": false, "cable": { "id": 1548, "url": "https://example.com/api/dcim/cables/1548/", "display": "#1548", "label": "" }, "cable_peer": { "id": 8277, "url": "https://example.com/api/dcim/interfaces/8277/", "display": "ge-0/0/0", "device": { "id": 472, "url": "https://example.com/api/dcim/devices/472/", "display": "juEX34-04", "name": "juEX34-04", "display_name": "juEX34-04" }, "name": "ge-0/0/0", "cable": 1548, "_occupied": true }, "cable_peer_type": "dcim.interface", "connected_endpoint": { "id": 8277, "url": "https://example.com/api/dcim/interfaces/8277/", "display": "ge-0/0/0", "device": { "id": 472, "url": "https://example.com/api/dcim/devices/472/", "display": "juEX34-04", "name": "juEX34-04", "display_name": "juEX34-04" }, "name": "ge-0/0/0", "cable": 1548, "_occupied": true }, "connected_endpoint_type": "dcim.interface", "connected_endpoint_reachable": true, "tags": [], "custom_fields": {}, "created": "2021-04-23", "last_updated": "2021-04-23T10:21:19.028563Z", "count_ipaddresses": 0, "_occupied": true } ``` I tested it for `virtualization.interfaces` and there it works as expected. Should I file a new bug for this?
adam commented 2025-12-29 19:20:55 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Apr 23, 2021):

Yes, please open a new bug if there's specific, reproducible behavior that you believe is incorrect. Be sure to include the set of steps that someone else can take to replicate the suspected bug.

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Apr 23, 2021): Yes, please open a new bug if there's specific, reproducible behavior that you believe is incorrect. Be sure to include the set of steps that someone else can take to replicate the suspected bug.
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 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#4815
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?