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

Filter on custom field via API #4986

New Issue
Closed
opened 2025-12-29 19:22:52 +01:00 by adam · 7 comments
adam commented 2025-12-29 19:22:52 +01:00
Owner
Copy Link

Originally created by @christopheg on GitHub (Jun 9, 2021).

NetBox version

v2.11.6

Python version

3.7

Steps to Reproduce

A custom field is created for object 'Device': warranty_expiration of type Date.
When fetching the devices via API an extra condition is added: cf_warranty_expiration__gt=2020-03-21

Expected Behavior

When applying this filter, I would expect to only see devices with custom field 'warranty_expiration' set to a date after 2020-03-21

Observed Behavior

The filter is not applied. All devices are returned.

Originally created by @christopheg on GitHub (Jun 9, 2021). ### NetBox version v2.11.6 ### Python version 3.7 ### Steps to Reproduce A custom field is created for object 'Device': warranty_expiration of type Date. When fetching the devices via API an extra condition is added: cf_warranty_expiration__gt=2020-03-21 ### Expected Behavior When applying this filter, I would expect to only see devices with custom field 'warranty_expiration' set to a date after 2020-03-21 ### Observed Behavior The filter is not applied. All devices are returned.
adam added the type: bugstatus: under review labels 2025-12-29 19:22:52 +01:00
adam closed this issue 2025-12-29 19:22:52 +01:00
adam commented 2025-12-29 19:22:53 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Jun 9, 2021):

cf_warranty_expiration__gt=2020-03-21

I don't believe we support lookup expressions for custom fields. Searching on the field by exact match should work though; does it?

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Jun 9, 2021): > `cf_warranty_expiration__gt=2020-03-21` I don't believe we support lookup expressions for custom fields. Searching on the field by exact match should work though; does it?
adam commented 2025-12-29 19:22:53 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@christopheg commented on GitHub (Jun 10, 2021):

I can confirm thaat an exact match does work. Based on the documentation I expected the expressions to work also for the custom fields but apparently not...
Is that something that could be added?
Also, do you think the 'gt' expression would work for type Date?

@christopheg commented on GitHub (Jun 10, 2021): I can confirm thaat an exact match does work. Based on the documentation I expected the expressions to work also for the custom fields but apparently not... Is that something that could be added? Also, do you think the 'gt' expression would work for type Date?
adam commented 2025-12-29 19:22:53 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Jun 10, 2021):

Based on the documentation I expected the expressions to work

That's a fair point; we should call out the caveat for custom fields.

Is that something that could be added?

I'm actually not sure. Custom field values are stored in JSON blobs, so PostgreSQL doesn't actually know e.g. that a date is a date as opposed to just a string. The data type is necessary to perform lookups other than exact match. It does know about the different JSON types (strings, integers, and booleans) though, so we can probably implement filter lookups for those, at least.

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Jun 10, 2021): > Based on the documentation I expected the expressions to work That's a fair point; we should call out the caveat for custom fields. > Is that something that could be added? I'm actually not sure. Custom field values are stored in JSON blobs, so PostgreSQL doesn't actually know e.g. that a date is a date as opposed to just a string. The data type is necessary to perform lookups other than exact match. It does know about the different JSON types (strings, integers, and booleans) though, so we can probably implement filter lookups for those, at least.
adam commented 2025-12-29 19:22:54 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Jun 10, 2021):

Thinking about this some more, this might work if we establish a dedicated set of lookups for date/time types (e.g. before and after rather than greater/less than) to imply the type, and cast the value on lookup.

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Jun 10, 2021): Thinking about this some more, this might work if we establish a dedicated set of lookups for date/time types (e.g. `before` and `after` rather than greater/less than) to imply the type, and cast the value on lookup.
adam commented 2025-12-29 19:22:54 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@christopheg commented on GitHub (Jun 10, 2021):

Maybe this is not related, but there seems to be a similar feature already available: If you go to the web interface to 'devices' and add a column for the custom field with the date, you can sort on it. I suppose somehow this sorting is done on the PostgreSQL side? If so, maybe that technique can be re-used?

@christopheg commented on GitHub (Jun 10, 2021): Maybe this is not related, but there seems to be a similar feature already available: If you go to the web interface to 'devices' and add a column for the custom field with the date, you can sort on it. I suppose somehow this sorting is done on the PostgreSQL side? If so, maybe that technique can be re-used?
adam commented 2025-12-29 19:22:54 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Jun 10, 2021):

That's a good point actually. We store datetimes as strings, which are inherently ordered alphabetically, so maybe we don't need anything more complex. I'll need to dig into how the specific lookups actually function at the database level.

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Jun 10, 2021): That's a good point actually. We store datetimes as strings, which are inherently ordered alphabetically, so maybe we don't need anything more complex. I'll need to dig into how the specific lookups actually function at the database level.
adam commented 2025-12-29 19:22:54 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Jun 16, 2021):

I've opened #6615 to propose the implementation of lookups for custom fields. Let's concentrate further discussion there.

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Jun 16, 2021): I've opened #6615 to propose the implementation of lookups for custom fields. Let's concentrate further discussion there.
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: under review type: bug
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#4986
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?