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

Status attribute of Virtual IP Address should be mandatory in FHRP group creation form #5627

New Issue
Closed
opened 2025-12-29 19:30:16 +01:00 by adam · 2 comments
adam commented 2025-12-29 19:30:16 +01:00
Owner
Copy Link

Originally created by @hoalex on GitHub (Nov 7, 2021).

Originally assigned to: @jeremystretch on GitHub.

NetBox version

v3.1-beta1

Python version

3.8

Steps to Reproduce

  1. Navigate to "FHRP Groups" --> Add
  2. Notice that the attribute "Status" under "Virtual IP Address" is optional

Expected Behavior

I would expect the field to be mandatory, just as it is already the case in the IPAM IP Address model, where it's not possible to create an IP with an empty status.

Observed Behavior

It's possible to leave the status field empty, resulting in a new IP address with an empty status (but when editing the IP address, the form defaults to a status of "Active").

Originally created by @hoalex on GitHub (Nov 7, 2021). Originally assigned to: @jeremystretch on GitHub. ### NetBox version v3.1-beta1 ### Python version 3.8 ### Steps to Reproduce 1. Navigate to "FHRP Groups" --> Add 2. Notice that the attribute "Status" under "Virtual IP Address" is optional ### Expected Behavior I would expect the field to be mandatory, just as it is already the case in the IPAM IP Address model, where it's not possible to create an IP with an empty status. ### Observed Behavior It's possible to leave the status field empty, resulting in a new IP address with an empty status (but when editing the IP address, the form defaults to a status of "Active").
adam added the type: bugstatus: acceptedbeta labels 2025-12-29 19:30:16 +01:00
adam closed this issue 2025-12-29 19:30:16 +01:00
adam commented 2025-12-29 19:30:16 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@hoalex commented on GitHub (Nov 7, 2021):

Thinking about it, making the status field mandatory would make it necessary to always enter an IP address when creating a new FHRP group, even if corresponding virtual IP addresses may already exist in Netbox.
Instead, what about giving the user the option to either a) create a new virtual IP address during FHRP group creation (like it is the case now) or b) re-use an existing IP address?

This could work similar to the "Add a new IP address" form that appears when assigning an IP to a device interface. This form gives the user the option between "Create" and "Assign IP", the latter allowing the user to search for an already existing IP address.

Let me know if I should close this bug report, and open a feature request instead.

@hoalex commented on GitHub (Nov 7, 2021): Thinking about it, making the status field mandatory would make it necessary to always enter an IP address when creating a new FHRP group, even if corresponding virtual IP addresses may already exist in Netbox. Instead, what about giving the user the option to either a) create a new virtual IP address during FHRP group creation (like it is the case now) or b) re-use an existing IP address? This could work similar to the "Add a new IP address" form that appears when assigning an IP to a device interface. This form gives the user the option between "Create" and "Assign IP", the latter allowing the user to search for an already existing IP address. Let me know if I should close this bug report, and open a feature request instead.
adam commented 2025-12-29 19:30:17 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Nov 8, 2021):

We just need to validate that a status has been selected if a new IP address is being created. There's other discussion in #7769 regarding your other point.

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Nov 8, 2021): We just need to validate that a status has been selected if a new IP address is being created. There's other discussion in #7769 regarding your other point.
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 beta status: accepted 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#5627
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?