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

Relative date filtering #5728

New Issue
Closed
opened 2025-12-29 19:31:58 +01:00 by adam · 6 comments
adam commented 2025-12-29 19:31:58 +01:00
Owner
Copy Link

Originally created by @hoalex on GitHub (Dec 6, 2021).

NetBox version

v3.0.10

Feature type

New functionality

Proposed functionality

After #7604 has been implemented, it would be nice if one could also use relative filters when filtering on custom fields of type "date", for example "less than 6 months", or "more than one year".
It would probably suffice to simply use "day" as the unit, and leave it up to the user to provide the proper value.

Use case

We use Netbox to track the maintenance expiry dates of our devices, as well as the end of life for various platforms.
By having relative date filters, one could save a search query such as "Show me all production devices for which the hardware maintenance expires in less than one year".
The advantage is that the search itself is completely static, and could be used as a browser bookmark, for example, without the user having to re-define the search with absolute dates.

Database changes

None

External dependencies

None

Originally created by @hoalex on GitHub (Dec 6, 2021). ### NetBox version v3.0.10 ### Feature type New functionality ### Proposed functionality After #7604 has been implemented, it would be nice if one could also use relative filters when filtering on custom fields of type "date", for example "less than 6 months", or "more than one year". It would probably suffice to simply use "day" as the unit, and leave it up to the user to provide the proper value. ### Use case We use Netbox to track the maintenance expiry dates of our devices, as well as the end of life for various platforms. By having relative date filters, one could save a search query such as "Show me all production devices for which the hardware maintenance expires in less than one year". The advantage is that the search itself is completely static, and could be used as a browser bookmark, for example, without the user having to re-define the search with absolute dates. ### Database changes None ### External dependencies None
adam added the type: featurepending closurestatus: under review labels 2025-12-29 19:31:58 +01:00
adam closed this issue 2025-12-29 19:31:58 +01:00
adam commented 2025-12-29 19:31:58 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Dec 6, 2021):

it would be nice if one could also use relative filters when filtering on custom fields of type "date", for example "less than 6 months", or "more than one year".

Please elaborate on the proposed implementation. What is the proposed structure of such a query? How would you distinguish between absolute and relative queries?

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Dec 6, 2021): > it would be nice if one could also use relative filters when filtering on custom fields of type "date", for example "less than 6 months", or "more than one year". Please elaborate on the proposed implementation. What is the proposed structure of such a query? How would you distinguish between absolute and relative queries?
adam commented 2025-12-29 19:31:58 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

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

Regarding the UI, I think it depends a bit on how the revamped interface will look like after implementing #7604. I guess there will be a dropdown with the new filter options (less than, bigger than, not equal to, ...) next to custom fields? In this case, one could add a second dropdown next to the first one, with the choices "absolute" or "relative" (only for date fields).
When "absolute" is selected (which should be the default), a date selection widget is shown (like it is the case at the moment, when filtering on a date field), whereas a simple text (integer) box would be shown in the latter case.

Regarding the query itself, I'm no Django expert, but I imagine one could try to use the lt, gt, gte, lte lookup expressions as for numeric fields (as described here). To differentiate between absolute and relative queries, it could be possible to try to parse the query string as an absolute date first (yyyy-mm-dd, like it is currently), and if that fails, try to parse it as an integer, thus treating it as a relative offset.

Right now, when trying to run a query like /?cf_maintenance_expiration_date=1234 against the REST API, I already receive an error message Enter a valid date., so I think it should be possible to expand the parsing logic to also include integers as explained above.

@hoalex commented on GitHub (Dec 7, 2021): Regarding the UI, I think it depends a bit on how the revamped interface will look like after implementing #7604. I guess there will be a dropdown with the new filter options (less than, bigger than, not equal to, ...) next to custom fields? In this case, one could add a second dropdown next to the first one, with the choices "absolute" or "relative" (only for date fields). When "absolute" is selected (which should be the default), a date selection widget is shown (like it is the case at the moment, when filtering on a date field), whereas a simple text (integer) box would be shown in the latter case. Regarding the query itself, I'm no Django expert, but I imagine one could try to use the lt, gt, gte, lte lookup expressions as for numeric fields (as described [here](https://netbox.readthedocs.io/en/stable/rest-api/filtering/#numeric-fields)). To differentiate between absolute and relative queries, it could be possible to try to parse the query string as an absolute date first (yyyy-mm-dd, like it is currently), and if that fails, try to parse it as an integer, thus treating it as a relative offset. Right now, when trying to run a query like `/?cf_maintenance_expiration_date=1234` against the REST API, I already receive an error message `Enter a valid date.`, so I think it should be possible to expand the parsing logic to also include integers as explained above.
adam commented 2025-12-29 19:31:59 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

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

To differentiate between absolute and relative queries, it could be possible to try to parse the query string as an absolute date first (yyyy-mm-dd, like it is currently), and if that fails, try to parse it as an integer, thus treating it as a relative offset.

We generally avoid this sort of approach because it makes validation of input values very difficult. It's a lot easier to define and test filters that accept a single data type.

Today, we have lookups such as:

?date=2021-12-08
?date__gt=2021-12-08
?date__lt=2021-12-08

So, without overloading the existing lookups, how would you do relative dates?

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Dec 8, 2021): > To differentiate between absolute and relative queries, it could be possible to try to parse the query string as an absolute date first (yyyy-mm-dd, like it is currently), and if that fails, try to parse it as an integer, thus treating it as a relative offset. We generally avoid this sort of approach because it makes validation of input values very difficult. It's a lot easier to define and test filters that accept a single data type. Today, we have lookups such as: ``` ?date=2021-12-08 ?date__gt=2021-12-08 ?date__lt=2021-12-08 ``` So, without overloading the existing lookups, how would you do relative dates?
adam commented 2025-12-29 19:31:59 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@hoalex commented on GitHub (Dec 9, 2021):

If overloading of existing lookups is not an option, then I guess the next best way would be to write custom lookups in Django, as explained here.
How about naming these [lt|gt|lte|gte]o, e.g. lto (less than offset, but that's just an idea)? The offset would always be relative to today():

?date=2021-12-08 (objects where date is equal to 2021-12-08)
?date__gto=180 (objects where date is more than 180 days in the future)
?date__lto=360 (objects where date is less than 360 days in the future)
@hoalex commented on GitHub (Dec 9, 2021): If overloading of existing lookups is not an option, then I guess the next best way would be to write custom lookups in Django, as explained [here](https://docs.djangoproject.com/en/3.2/howto/custom-lookups/). How about naming these `[lt|gt|lte|gte]o`, e.g. `lto` (**l**ess **t**han **o**ffset, but that's just an idea)? The offset would always be relative to `today()`: ``` ?date=2021-12-08 (objects where date is equal to 2021-12-08) ?date__gto=180 (objects where date is more than 180 days in the future) ?date__lto=360 (objects where date is less than 360 days in the future) ```
adam commented 2025-12-29 19:32:00 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@github-actions[bot] commented on GitHub (Feb 8, 2022):

This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed if no further activity occurs. NetBox is governed by a small group of core maintainers which means not all opened issues may receive direct feedback. Please see our contributing guide.

@github-actions[bot] commented on GitHub (Feb 8, 2022): This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed if no further activity occurs. NetBox is governed by a small group of core maintainers which means not all opened issues may receive direct feedback. Please see our [contributing guide](https://github.com/netbox-community/netbox/blob/develop/CONTRIBUTING.md).
adam commented 2025-12-29 19:32:00 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@github-actions[bot] commented on GitHub (Mar 10, 2022):

This issue has been automatically closed due to lack of activity. In an effort to reduce noise, please do not comment any further. Note that the core maintainers may elect to reopen this issue at a later date if deemed necessary.

@github-actions[bot] commented on GitHub (Mar 10, 2022): This issue has been automatically closed due to lack of activity. In an effort to reduce noise, please do not comment any further. Note that the core maintainers may elect to reopen this issue at a later date if deemed necessary.
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 pending closure status: under review 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#5728
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?