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

Inconsistency in API for field role/device #4898

New Issue
Closed
opened 2025-12-29 19:21:54 +01:00 by adam · 7 comments
adam commented 2025-12-29 19:21:54 +01:00
Owner
Copy Link

Originally created by @leahoswald on GitHub (May 11, 2021).

Originally assigned to: @abhi1693 on GitHub.

NetBox version

v2.9.9

Python version

3.6

Steps to Reproduce

  • Open a VM in the API view: The role field is called role
  • Open a device in the API view: The role field is called device_role

Expected Behavior

I would expect that both fields are called the same (role) because they are linking to the same data.

Observed Behavior

The device field is called device_role and the VM field is called role

Originally created by @leahoswald on GitHub (May 11, 2021). Originally assigned to: @abhi1693 on GitHub. ### NetBox version v2.9.9 ### Python version 3.6 ### Steps to Reproduce - Open a VM in the API view: The role field is called `role` - Open a device in the API view: The role field is called `device_role` ### Expected Behavior I would expect that both fields are called the same (`role`) because they are linking to the same data. ### Observed Behavior The device field is called `device_role` and the VM field is called `role`
adam added the status: acceptedtype: housekeeping labels 2025-12-29 19:21:54 +01:00
adam closed this issue 2025-12-29 19:21:54 +01:00
adam commented 2025-12-29 19:21:55 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (May 12, 2021):

It doesn't seem like the hassle of introducing a breaking change like this would be worthwhile just to achieve consistency with another model.

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (May 12, 2021): It doesn't seem like the hassle of introducing a breaking change like this would be worthwhile just to achieve consistency with another model.
adam commented 2025-12-29 19:21:56 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@leahoswald commented on GitHub (May 12, 2021):

Of course it's a breaking change. On the other hand it means extra handling for every code that works with both devices and VMs. For example if you want to generate monitoring config from it. I understand that it is to much for a normal release but maybe if there is a future release with other braking changes it would be an opportunity to fix it. It would be the first braking change on the API (I remember fixing some code because of a change in the state variable.)

@leahoswald commented on GitHub (May 12, 2021): Of course it's a breaking change. On the other hand it means extra handling for every code that works with both devices and VMs. For example if you want to generate monitoring config from it. I understand that it is to much for a normal release but maybe if there is a future release with other braking changes it would be an opportunity to fix it. It would be the first braking change on the API (I remember fixing some code because of a change in the `state` variable.)
adam commented 2025-12-29 19:21:56 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (May 12, 2021):

On the other hand it means extra handling for every code that works with both devices and VMs.

These are always going to require separate logic, as they are different models. Renaming the device_role field won't change that.

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (May 12, 2021): > On the other hand it means extra handling for every code that works with both devices and VMs. These are always going to require separate logic, as they are different models. Renaming the `device_role` field won't change that.
adam commented 2025-12-29 19:21:56 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (May 18, 2021):

Flagging this for milestone assignment to potentially handle in the future. We could potentially implement a getter & setter to maintain backward compatibility across releases, however I'm not sure what potential pitfalls we'd run into regarding Django's ORM's behavior.

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (May 18, 2021): Flagging this for milestone assignment to potentially handle in the future. We could potentially implement a getter & setter to maintain backward compatibility across releases, however I'm not sure what potential pitfalls we'd run into regarding Django's ORM's behavior.
adam commented 2025-12-29 19:21:56 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@abhi1693 commented on GitHub (Jan 14, 2023):

Would it fine if a field is renamed and this is introduced as a breaking change for v3.5? I can submit a PR if that's accepted as a solution

@abhi1693 commented on GitHub (Jan 14, 2023): Would it fine if a field is renamed and this is introduced as a breaking change for v3.5? I can submit a PR if that's accepted as a solution
adam commented 2025-12-29 19:21:57 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@ryanmerolle commented on GitHub (Apr 25, 2023):

This could be a good candidate for 3.6

@ryanmerolle commented on GitHub (Apr 25, 2023): This could be a good candidate for 3.6
adam commented 2025-12-29 19:21:57 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@abhi1693 commented on GitHub (Aug 2, 2023):

I'm going to try to make the field backward-compaitible for the API and ORM access. If that's possible, should be able to ship this with v3.6

@abhi1693 commented on GitHub (Aug 2, 2023): I'm going to try to make the field backward-compaitible for the API and ORM access. If that's possible, should be able to ship this with v3.6
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: 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#4898
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?