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

Enable referencing the current user when evaluating permission constraints #6321

New Issue
Closed
opened 2025-12-29 19:39:20 +01:00 by adam · 3 comments
adam commented 2025-12-29 19:39:20 +01:00
Owner
Copy Link

Originally created by @jeremystretch on GitHub (Apr 7, 2022).

NetBox version

v3.2.0

Feature type

New functionality

Proposed functionality

When assigning user and group permissions in NetBox, an administrator can attach certain constraints to effect object-level permissions. These constraints can evaluate object attributes but are currently limited to referencing static values.

This FR proposes a mechanism to allow constraints to reference the current user when evaluating rules. For example, the following constraint might be used to permit a user to delete only his or her own journal entries:

{
  "created_by": "$USER"
}

(I'm open to ideas about the preferred variable structure; $USER seemed like a reasonable placeholder.)

I still need to look more into the implementation details, but it seems reasonable to assume that the current user will always be available in the context of permissions evaluation.

Use case

This would allow for more dynamic constraint definitions, and avoid the need to define unique rules per user.

Database changes

No response

External dependencies

No response

Originally created by @jeremystretch on GitHub (Apr 7, 2022). ### NetBox version v3.2.0 ### Feature type New functionality ### Proposed functionality When assigning user and group permissions in NetBox, an administrator can attach certain [constraints](https://netbox.readthedocs.io/en/stable/administration/permissions/#constraints) to effect object-level permissions. These constraints can evaluate object attributes but are currently limited to referencing static values. This FR proposes a mechanism to allow constraints to reference the current user when evaluating rules. For example, the following constraint might be used to permit a user to delete only his or her own journal entries: ```json { "created_by": "$USER" } ``` (I'm open to ideas about the preferred variable structure; `$USER` seemed like a reasonable placeholder.) I still need to look more into the implementation details, but it seems reasonable to assume that the current user will always be available in the context of permissions evaluation. ### Use case This would allow for more dynamic constraint definitions, and avoid the need to define unique rules per user. ### Database changes _No response_ ### External dependencies _No response_
adam added the status: acceptedtype: feature labels 2025-12-29 19:39:20 +01:00
adam closed this issue 2025-12-29 19:39:20 +01:00
adam commented 2025-12-29 19:39:21 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@sdktr commented on GitHub (Apr 8, 2022):

Do you want to limit this to the static (referencing the database record) $user context, or allow the expansion to other 'session variables'? Like: $request.headers.x-rbac-tenant?

@sdktr commented on GitHub (Apr 8, 2022): Do you want to limit this to the static (referencing the database record) $user context, or allow the expansion to other 'session variables'? Like: $request.headers.x-rbac-tenant?
adam commented 2025-12-29 19:39:21 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Apr 8, 2022):

The request isn't available as context when evaluating the permissions.

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Apr 8, 2022): The request isn't available as context when evaluating the permissions.
adam commented 2025-12-29 19:39:22 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@github-actions[bot] commented on GitHub (Jun 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. Do not attempt to circumvent this process by "bumping" the issue; doing so will result in its immediate closure and you may be barred from participating in any future discussions. Please see our contributing guide.

@github-actions[bot] commented on GitHub (Jun 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. **Do not** attempt to circumvent this process by "bumping" the issue; doing so will result in its immediate closure and you may be barred from participating in any future discussions. Please see our [contributing guide](https://github.com/netbox-community/netbox/blob/develop/CONTRIBUTING.md).
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: 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#6321
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?