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 device with same name fails #6991

New Issue
Closed
opened 2025-12-29 19:47:32 +01:00 by adam · 3 comments
adam commented 2025-12-29 19:47:32 +01:00
Owner
Copy Link

Originally created by @GubblGubbl on GitHub (Sep 16, 2022).

NetBox version

v.3.3.3

Python version

3.10

Steps to Reproduce

  1. Create site a
  2. Create location a on site a
  3. Create location b on site a
  4. Create device a on site a location a
  5. Create device a on site a location b

Expected Behavior

Device a will be created on both locations.

Observed Behavior

Device a is created on location a.
Creating device a on location b results in "A device with this name already exists."

Originally created by @GubblGubbl on GitHub (Sep 16, 2022). ### NetBox version v.3.3.3 ### Python version 3.10 ### Steps to Reproduce 1. Create site a 2. Create location a on site a 3. Create location b on site a 4. Create device a on site a location a 5. Create device a on site a location b ### Expected Behavior Device a will be created on both locations. ### Observed Behavior Device a is created on location a. Creating device a on location b results in "A device with this name already exists."
adam added the type: bug label 2025-12-29 19:47:32 +01:00
adam closed this issue 2025-12-29 19:47:33 +01:00
adam commented 2025-12-29 19:47:34 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@dreng commented on GitHub (Sep 16, 2022):

This might be considered a bug, but honestly you should definitely develop a proper naming convention that takes into account all sites and locations. You should never have duplicate names if you do it properly.

@dreng commented on GitHub (Sep 16, 2022): This might be considered a bug, but honestly you should definitely develop a proper naming convention that takes into account all sites and locations. You should never have duplicate names if you do it properly.
adam commented 2025-12-29 19:47:34 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@GubblGubbl commented on GitHub (Sep 16, 2022):

We discovered this behavior accidentally by importing devices not with live data :)

@GubblGubbl commented on GitHub (Sep 16, 2022): We discovered this behavior accidentally by importing devices not with live data :)
adam commented 2025-12-29 19:47:34 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@kkthxbye-code commented on GitHub (Sep 16, 2022):

As far as I know this is intended and as such is not a bug. If you want to suggest a change it must be raised as a feature request.

From the documentation.

Device names must be unique within a site, unless the device has been assigned to a tenant. Devices may also be unnamed.

1d033bd286/netbox/dcim/models/devices.py (L682-L691)

1d033bd286/netbox/dcim/models/devices.py (L652-L658)

In short, uniqueness of devices is based on name, tenant and site. So you cannot have two devices with the same name on the same site with the same tenant. If you want location to be part of the uniqueness constraint it must be raised as a FR, however it would require some very convincing arguments imo.

@kkthxbye-code commented on GitHub (Sep 16, 2022): As far as I know this is intended and as such is not a bug. If you want to suggest a change it must be raised as a feature request. [From the documentation.](https://demo.netbox.dev/static/docs/models/dcim/device/) > Device names must be unique within a site, unless the device has been assigned to a tenant. Devices may also be unnamed. https://github.com/netbox-community/netbox/blob/1d033bd286f605dd4c500b3808cb496b347d4d3c/netbox/dcim/models/devices.py#L682-L691 https://github.com/netbox-community/netbox/blob/1d033bd286f605dd4c500b3808cb496b347d4d3c/netbox/dcim/models/devices.py#L652-L658 In short, uniqueness of devices is based on name, tenant and site. So you cannot have two devices with the same name on the same site with the same tenant. If you want location to be part of the uniqueness constraint it must be raised as a FR, however it would require some very convincing arguments imo.
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#6991
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?