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

Saved Filters #6604

New Issue
Closed
opened 2025-12-29 19:42:59 +01:00 by adam · 9 comments
adam commented 2025-12-29 19:42:59 +01:00
Owner
Copy Link

Originally created by @jasonyates on GitHub (Jun 28, 2022).

Originally assigned to: @jeremystretch on GitHub.

NetBox version

3.2.5

Feature type

New functionality

Proposed functionality

After building a filter it would be useful to be able to save it for future re-use, give it a name and the option to make it public. Public filters would then be viewable by all logged in to Netbox.

Proposing a 3rd tab alongside Results | Filters - perhaps 'Saved Filters'. Or possibly a section within the existing Filters tab to show any saved filters.

UI Suggestion for model list view

Screenshot 2022-06-29 at 10 45 03

Filters would not need to be modifiable, once saved, the user that created the filter can delete it from the saved filters list. When a user is removed from the system, the filters they created should also be removed.

Use case

I often find myself having to build the same filter repeatedly in Netbox as well as having to remember to share links with the team when I build a useful filter. Having the option to save a filter in Netbox and share it with my users would save time.

Database changes

A new model would need to be created to store the saved filters. Model would require a relation to the object type e.g. dcim.devices, filter attributes, friendly name, is public and a relation to the user that created it (to allow that user to delete it).

External dependencies

No response

Originally created by @jasonyates on GitHub (Jun 28, 2022). Originally assigned to: @jeremystretch on GitHub. ### NetBox version 3.2.5 ### Feature type New functionality ### Proposed functionality After building a filter it would be useful to be able to save it for future re-use, give it a name and the option to make it public. Public filters would then be viewable by all logged in to Netbox. Proposing a 3rd tab alongside Results | Filters - perhaps 'Saved Filters'. Or possibly a section within the existing Filters tab to show any saved filters. UI Suggestion for model list view <img width="693" alt="Screenshot 2022-06-29 at 10 45 03" src="https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/242483/176406541-0055dc0d-d326-45f2-ae12-474fcaa5cd20.png"> Filters would not need to be modifiable, once saved, the user that created the filter can delete it from the saved filters list. When a user is removed from the system, the filters they created should also be removed. ### Use case I often find myself having to build the same filter repeatedly in Netbox as well as having to remember to share links with the team when I build a useful filter. Having the option to save a filter in Netbox and share it with my users would save time. ### Database changes A new model would need to be created to store the saved filters. Model would require a relation to the object type e.g. dcim.devices, filter attributes, friendly name, is public and a relation to the user that created it (to allow that user to delete it). ### External dependencies _No response_
adam added the status: acceptedtype: feature labels 2025-12-29 19:42:59 +01:00
adam closed this issue 2025-12-29 19:42:59 +01:00
adam commented 2025-12-29 19:43:00 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Jun 28, 2022):

@jasonyates it sounds like a neat idea, but could you spend some more time fleshing out the proposal please? You haven't noted anything under database changes, and I'd assume this would require at least a new model.

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Jun 28, 2022): @jasonyates it sounds like a neat idea, but could you spend some more time fleshing out the proposal please? You haven't noted anything under database changes, and I'd assume this would require at least a new model.
adam commented 2025-12-29 19:43:00 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jasonyates commented on GitHub (Jun 29, 2022):

@jeremystretch Done. I included a proposed mockup of a piece of the UI too.

@jasonyates commented on GitHub (Jun 29, 2022): @jeremystretch Done. I included a proposed mockup of a piece of the UI too.
adam commented 2025-12-29 19:43:00 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

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

Expanding on the proposed model a bit, we probably need:

  • Name
  • User (nullable FK)
  • Description (optional)
  • Object type(s?)
  • Query parameters (JSON data)
  • Shared (boolean)

If shared is true, the filter will be made available for other users; otherwise, only the owner will see it listed as an available option when filtering an object list. However, it should still appear as visible in the saved filters list.

I've proposed making the user field nullable, so that the saved filter remains intact if the owning user is deleted.

We still need to determine how a saved filter would be applied in practice. I see two options:

  • Reference the saved filter directly when making a query, e.g. GET /dcim/sites/?filter=my_saved_filter
  • Use the filter to generate a query URL in the UI, so that when the user clicks "My saved filter," a request is made for e.g. GET /dcim/sites/?status=planned&tenant=blah

There are some caveats to both approaches. Making reference to a filter doesn't reveal the actual query parameters being used, which is likely to lead to confusion. It might also be difficult to parse on the backend. However, the second approach is of very limited utility outside of the UI: It provides no way for an API client to directly employ a saved filter.

A third, hybrid approach might be reasonable: A request for e.g. GET /dcim/sites/?filter=my_saved_filter would return a 302 redirect with the appropriate query parameters attached. This is slightly less efficient but may be a reasonable compromise.

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Jul 8, 2022): Expanding on the proposed model a bit, we probably need: * Name * User (nullable FK) * Description (optional) * Object type(s?) * Query parameters (JSON data) * Shared (boolean) If `shared` is true, the filter will be made available for other users; otherwise, only the owner will see it listed as an available option when filtering an object list. However, it should still appear as visible in the saved filters list. I've proposed making the `user` field nullable, so that the saved filter remains intact if the owning user is deleted. We still need to determine how a saved filter would be applied in practice. I see two options: * Reference the saved filter directly when making a query, e.g. `GET /dcim/sites/?filter=my_saved_filter` * Use the filter to generate a query URL in the UI, so that when the user clicks "My saved filter," a request is made for e.g. `GET /dcim/sites/?status=planned&tenant=blah` There are some caveats to both approaches. Making reference to a filter doesn't reveal the actual query parameters being used, which is likely to lead to confusion. It might also be difficult to parse on the backend. However, the second approach is of very limited utility outside of the UI: It provides no way for an API client to directly employ a saved filter. A third, hybrid approach might be reasonable: A request for e.g. `GET /dcim/sites/?filter=my_saved_filter` would return a 302 redirect with the appropriate query parameters attached. This is slightly less efficient but may be a reasonable compromise.
adam commented 2025-12-29 19:43:01 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jsenecal commented on GitHub (Sep 28, 2022):

I like this idea. I also think we should leverage NetBox User preference framework to potentially store a "default" filter, per object type, per user.

@jsenecal commented on GitHub (Sep 28, 2022): I like this idea. I also think we should leverage NetBox User preference framework to potentially store a "default" filter, per object type, per user.
adam commented 2025-12-29 19:43:01 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@ITJamie commented on GitHub (Sep 28, 2022):

I like the "redirect" idea as it would mean it would be easy for a user to edit the fields after they've selected the filter.

for example maybe theres a filter "find x cust devices with custom attrib" where its searching for devices where a tenant is set to x customer and some other logic.

User selects that filter, gets redirected, then changes the tenant in the filter to the one that suits them.

permissions:
Also i can already envision a new extra permission to allow users to edit any shared filter, would be useful to allow the "powerusers" to edit shared filters without giving them superadmin (assuming superadmins would be able to edit shared filters)

api:
Maybe a new endpoint where you can list / lookup filters and get the query params? once you have the params / search uri you can just call it.

@ITJamie commented on GitHub (Sep 28, 2022): I like the "redirect" idea as it would mean it would be easy for a user to edit the fields after they've selected the filter. for example maybe theres a filter "find x cust devices with custom attrib" where its searching for devices where a tenant is set to x customer and some other logic. User selects that filter, gets redirected, then changes the tenant in the filter to the one that suits them. permissions: Also i can already envision a new extra permission to allow users to edit any shared filter, would be useful to allow the "powerusers" to edit shared filters without giving them superadmin (assuming superadmins would be able to edit shared filters) api: Maybe a new endpoint where you can list / lookup filters and get the query params? once you have the params / search uri you can just call it.
adam commented 2025-12-29 19:43:01 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Oct 27, 2022):

Still in the early stages, but came up with this pretty quick. After some experimentation, I'm leaning away from the redirect idea, primarily because there's no clean way to convey to the user which saved filter they have applied. The groundwork is all in place now though; happy to discuss up to and during the beta period.

saved_filters

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Oct 27, 2022): Still in the early stages, but came up with this pretty quick. After some experimentation, I'm leaning away from the redirect idea, primarily because there's no clean way to convey to the user which saved filter they have applied. The groundwork is all in place now though; happy to discuss up to and during the beta period. ![saved_filters](https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/13487278/198393913-48dafd25-63da-45aa-9cd1-efd7d272e96f.gif)
adam commented 2025-12-29 19:43:02 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@hagbarddenstore commented on GitHub (Oct 28, 2022):

That looks awesome!Can the filter be selected via URL params?I know most of my users use bookmarks, so it would be beneficial if I could send them a URL pointing to a filter.On 27 Oct 2022, at 22:44, Jeremy Stretch @.***> wrote:
Still in the early stages, but came up with this pretty quick. After some experimentation, I'm leaning away from the redirect idea, primarily because there's no clean way to convey to the user which saved filter they have applied. The groundwork is all in place now though; happy to discuss up to and during the beta period.

—Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or unsubscribe.You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.Message ID: @.***>

@hagbarddenstore commented on GitHub (Oct 28, 2022): That looks awesome!Can the filter be selected via URL params?I know most of my users use bookmarks, so it would be beneficial if I could send them a URL pointing to a filter.On 27 Oct 2022, at 22:44, Jeremy Stretch ***@***.***> wrote: Still in the early stages, but came up with this pretty quick. After some experimentation, I'm leaning away from the redirect idea, primarily because there's no clean way to convey to the user which saved filter they have applied. The groundwork is all in place now though; happy to discuss up to and during the beta period. —Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or unsubscribe.You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.Message ID: ***@***.***>
adam commented 2025-12-29 19:43:02 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Oct 28, 2022):

@hagbarddenstore Yes, you link to e.g. /dcim/devices/?filter=my-custom-filter to apply the saved filter.

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Oct 28, 2022): @hagbarddenstore Yes, you link to e.g. `/dcim/devices/?filter=my-custom-filter` to apply the saved filter.
adam commented 2025-12-29 19:43:02 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@hagbarddenstore commented on GitHub (Oct 29, 2022):

Perfect!Awesome work!On 28 Oct 2022, at 20:13, Jeremy Stretch @.***> wrote:
@hagbarddenstore Yes, you link to e.g. /dcim/devices/?filter=my-custom-filter to apply the saved filter.

—Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or unsubscribe.You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: @.***>

@hagbarddenstore commented on GitHub (Oct 29, 2022): Perfect!Awesome work!On 28 Oct 2022, at 20:13, Jeremy Stretch ***@***.***> wrote: @hagbarddenstore Yes, you link to e.g. /dcim/devices/?filter=my-custom-filter to apply the saved filter. —Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or unsubscribe.You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: ***@***.***>
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#6604
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?