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

Add weight to device type / device #6623

New Issue
Closed
opened 2025-12-29 19:43:15 +01:00 by adam · 5 comments
adam commented 2025-12-29 19:43:15 +01:00
Owner
Copy Link

Originally created by @powerscooter on GitHub (Jul 3, 2022).

Originally assigned to: @arthanson on GitHub.

NetBox version

v3.2.3

Feature type

New functionality

Proposed functionality

Hi,

would it be possible to add a weight field (kg) to the Device Type and Device?

Use case

We can only fit a certain weight per rack, we would like to document this directly in Netbox.
For this it would be nice to have this at the Device Type, Device and afterwards as a view at the Rack.

Database changes

No response

External dependencies

No response

Originally created by @powerscooter on GitHub (Jul 3, 2022). Originally assigned to: @arthanson on GitHub. ### NetBox version v3.2.3 ### Feature type New functionality ### Proposed functionality Hi, would it be possible to add a weight field (kg) to the Device Type and Device? ### Use case We can only fit a certain weight per rack, we would like to document this directly in Netbox. For this it would be nice to have this at the Device Type, Device and afterwards as a view at the Rack. ### Database changes _No response_ ### External dependencies _No response_
adam added the status: acceptedtype: feature labels 2025-12-29 19:43:15 +01:00
adam closed this issue 2025-12-29 19:43:15 +01:00
adam commented 2025-12-29 19:43:15 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Jul 5, 2022):

If we add this, we should take the same approach that we do for storing cable length: Allow the user to specify both a value and a unit (e.g. kilograms or pounds), but also store the absolute weight in kilograms for ordering and filtering. This is because manufacturers may list a device's weight in only one unit or the other, and avoids requiring users to do conversions before entering the data into NetBox.

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Jul 5, 2022): If we add this, we should take the same approach that we do for storing cable length: Allow the user to specify both a value and a unit (e.g. kilograms or pounds), but also store the absolute weight in kilograms for ordering and filtering. This is because manufacturers may list a device's weight in only one unit or the other, and avoids requiring users to do conversions before entering the data into NetBox.
adam commented 2025-12-29 19:43:15 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@powerscooter commented on GitHub (Jul 7, 2022):

Yes that sounds good. That's exactly how it would be perfect.

@powerscooter commented on GitHub (Jul 7, 2022): Yes that sounds good. That's exactly how it would be perfect.
adam commented 2025-12-29 19:43:16 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@brainsfull commented on GitHub (Jul 17, 2022):

We often have floor loading limitations where this feature would be very useful. Suggest weight is also added to the module type which adds to the total device weight. For larger chassis based equipment this will provide a more accurate weight per rack/cabinet. It also would be useful to track rack max. weight capacity (either a factor of the total rack make/model capacity or the floor's loading capacity) so the viewer can see the available weight capacity of the cabinet in a bar chart like you currently can with circuit power.

@brainsfull commented on GitHub (Jul 17, 2022): We often have floor loading limitations where this feature would be very useful. Suggest weight is also added to the module type which adds to the total device weight. For larger chassis based equipment this will provide a more accurate weight per rack/cabinet. It also would be useful to track rack max. weight capacity (either a factor of the total rack make/model capacity or the floor's loading capacity) so the viewer can see the available weight capacity of the cabinet in a bar chart like you currently can with circuit power.
adam commented 2025-12-29 19:43:16 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Aug 18, 2022):

Suggest weight is also added to the module type which adds to the total device weight. For larger chassis based equipment this will provide a more accurate weight per rack/cabinet.

I think if we take this approach we should add weight fields only to the DeviceType and ModuleType models, and introduce a read-only weight property on device which reports the sum of the device type's weight and the weight of all modules.

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Aug 18, 2022): > Suggest weight is also added to the module type which adds to the total device weight. For larger chassis based equipment this will provide a more accurate weight per rack/cabinet. I think if we take this approach we should add `weight` fields only to the DeviceType and ModuleType models, and introduce a read-only `weight` property on device which reports the sum of the device type's weight and the weight of all modules.
adam commented 2025-12-29 19:43:16 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@DanSheps commented on GitHub (Aug 20, 2022):

My only concern is, if we are talking about floor load limits, a rack also adds to the overall weight.

Might it be better to have a weight field, with a weighs property to return the sum of any components.

This would allow you to have both a weight and a weighs on a rack, where weighs would return the sum of all devices weighs "property".

@DanSheps commented on GitHub (Aug 20, 2022): My only concern is, if we are talking about floor load limits, a rack also adds to the overall weight. Might it be better to have a weight field, with a weighs property to return the sum of any components. This would allow you to have both a weight and a weighs on a rack, where weighs would return the sum of all devices weighs "property".
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#6623
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?