starred/netbox
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/netbox-community/netbox.git synced 2026-01-13 13:53:31 +01:00
Code Issues 273 Packages Projects Releases 10 Wiki Activity

Extend vlan group scopes #5551

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

Originally created by @kovalev94 on GitHub (Oct 23, 2021).

NetBox version

v2.11.12

Feature type

Change to existing functionality

Proposed functionality

Add ability to choose several scope types.
Add ability to choose several scopes in one type.
Add device role scope type/
Dear developers, I don't know how your product works and what changes should be done for this feature.
I think it's not necessarily for me as user know software details for feature request.

Use case

I will provide example as an ISP.
I have 3 site groups: Home sites(for access switches), Trunk node sites (for aggregation switches) and CORE sites( for core hardware)
With current scope settings i cant assign vlan group for trunk node sites and core sites both. I have vlans which should be assigned for aggregation switches and core hardware, but shouldn't be assigned to access switches.
Also i may want to assign vlan only for switches, but not for other network hardware installed on sites.
Ability to choose several scopes types and scopes will add more flexibility for vlan assigment and solve cases like examples.

Database changes

No response

External dependencies

No response

Originally created by @kovalev94 on GitHub (Oct 23, 2021). ### NetBox version v2.11.12 ### Feature type Change to existing functionality ### Proposed functionality Add ability to choose several scope types. Add ability to choose several scopes in one type. Add device role scope type/ Dear developers, I don't know how your product works and what changes should be done for this feature. I think it's not necessarily for me as user know software details for feature request. ### Use case I will provide example as an ISP. I have 3 site groups: Home sites(for access switches), Trunk node sites (for aggregation switches) and CORE sites( for core hardware) With current scope settings i cant assign vlan group for trunk node sites and core sites both. I have vlans which should be assigned for aggregation switches and core hardware, but shouldn't be assigned to access switches. Also i may want to assign vlan only for switches, but not for other network hardware installed on sites. Ability to choose several scopes types and scopes will add more flexibility for vlan assigment and solve cases like examples. ### Database changes _No response_ ### External dependencies _No response_
adam added the type: featurestatus: revisions needed labels 2025-12-29 19:29:20 +01:00
adam closed this issue 2025-12-29 19:29:21 +01:00
adam commented 2025-12-29 19:29:21 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

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

I think it's not necessarily for me as user know software details for feature request.

You're entitled to your opinion, however it will unfortunately preclude you from participating in the development of NetBox. Per the FR template:

Describe in detail the new feature or behavior you are proposing. Include any specific changes to work flows, data models, and/or the user interface. The more detail you provide here, the greater chance your proposal has of being discussed. Feature requests which don't include an actionable implementation plan will be rejected.

If you're not willing to commit some time and effort to at least detail exactly what change(s) you'd like to see, you shouldn't expect anyone else to show interest either.

Do you want to take some time to flesh out your request above, or should I proceed with closing this issue?

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Oct 23, 2021): > I think it's not necessarily for me as user know software details for feature request. You're entitled to your opinion, however it will unfortunately preclude you from participating in the development of NetBox. Per the FR template: > Describe in detail the new feature or behavior you are proposing. Include any specific changes to work flows, data models, and/or the user interface. The more detail you provide here, the greater chance your proposal has of being discussed. Feature requests which don't include an actionable implementation plan will be rejected. If you're not willing to commit some time and effort to at least detail exactly what change(s) you'd like to see, you shouldn't expect anyone else to show interest either. Do you want to take some time to flesh out your request above, or should I proceed with closing this issue?
adam commented 2025-12-29 19:29:21 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@kovalev94 commented on GitHub (Oct 24, 2021):

@jeremystretch
I would love to describe how to solve the problem, but I really don't know how Netbox works. I'm not strong in python, especially Django framework.
I do not demand from anyone to solve this issue, but I really hope that someone from developers or other people will agree with new features need, and maybe will propose code changes.
Maybe we should let other people see this FR?
If no one shows interest - this will honestly close the request.
Thanks for your answer.

@kovalev94 commented on GitHub (Oct 24, 2021): @jeremystretch I would love to describe how to solve the problem, but I really don't know how Netbox works. I'm not strong in python, especially Django framework. I do not demand from anyone to solve this issue, but I really hope that someone from developers or other people will agree with new features need, and maybe will propose code changes. Maybe we should let other people see this FR? If no one shows interest - this will honestly close the request. Thanks for your answer.
adam commented 2025-12-29 19:29:21 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Oct 24, 2021):

I do not demand from anyone to solve this issue, but I really hope that someone from developers or other people will agree with new features need, and maybe will propose code changes.

You are welcome to start a discussion to share your ideas and see if anyone else is interested in coming up with a detailed implementation. I'm going to close this issue because it does not amount to an actionable proposal in its current form.

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Oct 24, 2021): > I do not demand from anyone to solve this issue, but I really hope that someone from developers or other people will agree with new features need, and maybe will propose code changes. You are welcome to start a [discussion](https://github.com/netbox-community/netbox/discussions/new) to share your ideas and see if anyone else is interested in coming up with a detailed implementation. I'm going to close this issue because it does not amount to an actionable proposal in its current form.
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: revisions needed 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#5551
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?