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

Wrong HTTP code when redirecting in response to a POST request #6683

New Issue
Closed
opened 2025-12-29 19:43:55 +01:00 by adam · 4 comments
adam commented 2025-12-29 19:43:55 +01:00
Owner
Copy Link

Originally created by @piv3rt on GitHub (Jul 18, 2022).

NetBox version

v3.2.6

Python version

3.9

Steps to Reproduce

  1. The user creates a new "Region" object by submitting the form
  2. A POST request is sent by the browser to dcim/regions/add/
  3. Netbox responds with a 302 Found to redirect the user to dcim/regions/1/
  4. Browser complies with RFC 7231 and sends a new POST request to dcim/regions/1/
  5. Netbox responds with a 405 Method Not Allowed as it expected a GET request, and POST requests aren't supported for dcim/regions/1/

Expected Behavior

In regards to RFC 7231, I think Netbox should respond with a 303 See Other to redirect the user to dcim/regions/1/.

Observed Behavior

Netbox responds to a POST request with a 302 Found, but expects the following request method to bet GET.
This happens because of the use of Django's redirect() shortcut in object_views.py, which is based on HttpResponseRedirect and returns a 302 Found.

Originally created by @piv3rt on GitHub (Jul 18, 2022). ### NetBox version v3.2.6 ### Python version 3.9 ### Steps to Reproduce 1. The user creates a new "Region" object by submitting the form 2. A `POST` request is sent by the browser to `dcim/regions/add/` 3. Netbox responds with a `302 Found` to redirect the user to `dcim/regions/1/` 4. Browser complies with [RFC 7231](https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7231#section-6.4.4) and sends a new `POST` request to `dcim/regions/1/` 5. Netbox responds with a `405 Method Not Allowed` as it expected a `GET` request, and `POST` requests aren't supported for `dcim/regions/1/` ### Expected Behavior In regards to [RFC 7231](https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7231#section-6.4.4), I think Netbox should respond with a `303 See Other` to redirect the user to `dcim/regions/1/`. ### Observed Behavior Netbox responds to a `POST` request with a `302 Found`, but expects the following request method to bet `GET`. This happens because of the use of Django's `redirect()` shortcut in [object_views.py](https://github.com/netbox-community/netbox/blob/develop/netbox/netbox/views/generic/object_views.py#L404), which is based on `HttpResponseRedirect` and returns a `302 Found`.
adam added the type: bug label 2025-12-29 19:43:55 +01:00
adam closed this issue 2025-12-29 19:43:55 +01:00
adam commented 2025-12-29 19:43:55 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@kkthxbye-code commented on GitHub (Jul 18, 2022):

Browser complies with RFC 7231 and sends a new POST request to dcim/regions/1/

For completeness sake could you specify which browser(s)?

@kkthxbye-code commented on GitHub (Jul 18, 2022): > Browser complies with [RFC 7231](https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7231#section-6.4.4) and sends a new POST request to dcim/regions/1/ For completeness sake could you specify which browser(s)?
adam commented 2025-12-29 19:43:55 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@piv3rt commented on GitHub (Jul 18, 2022):

In my specific case, it's homemade cloud gateway (reverse proxy), not a desktop web browser. Sorry for this approximation. I understand that this problem might affect few people, as most browsers redirect users with a new GET request.

@piv3rt commented on GitHub (Jul 18, 2022): In my specific case, it's homemade cloud gateway (reverse proxy), not a desktop web browser. Sorry for this approximation. I understand that this problem might affect few people, as most browsers redirect users with a new `GET` request.
adam commented 2025-12-29 19:43:56 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

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

While I can appreciate wanting to adhere to the semantics of the RFC, returning a 302 redirect to invoke a GET request following a POST is extremely commonplace, so much so that even Django's canonical form processing example does exactly that. I'm sure the argument has come up before, but ultimately needs to happen much further upstream than in NetBox itself. Additionally, we don't want to invite new problems where none currently exist by altering long-established behavior. For those reasons, I'm going to decline this proposed change.

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Jul 18, 2022): While I can appreciate wanting to adhere to the semantics of the RFC, returning a 302 redirect to invoke a GET request following a POST is _extremely_ commonplace, so much so that even [Django's canonical form processing example](https://docs.djangoproject.com/en/4.0/topics/forms/#the-view) does exactly that. I'm sure the argument has come up before, but ultimately needs to happen much further upstream than in NetBox itself. Additionally, we don't want to invite new problems where none currently exist by altering long-established behavior. For those reasons, I'm going to decline this proposed change.
adam commented 2025-12-29 19:43:56 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@piv3rt commented on GitHub (Jul 18, 2022):

Thank you for taking the time to answer, I understand your point of view 🙂

@piv3rt commented on GitHub (Jul 18, 2022): Thank you for taking the time to answer, I understand your point of view 🙂
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 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#6683
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?