starred/netbox
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/netbox-community/netbox.git synced 2026-01-12 05:20:31 +01:00
Code Issues 273 Packages Projects Releases 10 Wiki Activity

Option to hide half-height (.5) positions when selecting device position #7150

New Issue
Closed
opened 2025-12-29 20:19:46 +01:00 by adam · 19 comments
adam commented 2025-12-29 20:19:46 +01:00
Owner
Copy Link

Originally created by @szeestraten on GitHub (Oct 24, 2022).

NetBox version

v3.3.5

Feature type

Change to existing functionality

Proposed functionality

Add option to hide half-height (.5) positions when selecting device position.

image
Hide the ones in red

Use case

Half-height rack units (#51) were introduced in v3.3.0.

The list of positions is now quite a bit longer and prone to misclicking when manually selecting the position of a device.

Adding the option/preference to hide half-height positions for those of us without half-height units would simplify things.

Database changes

No response

External dependencies

No response

Originally created by @szeestraten on GitHub (Oct 24, 2022). ### NetBox version v3.3.5 ### Feature type Change to existing functionality ### Proposed functionality Add option to hide half-height (.5) positions when selecting device position. ![image](https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/614823/197483079-b6061fb7-ea36-4d89-83eb-99c7c16f2781.png) *Hide the ones in red* ### Use case Half-height rack units (#51) were introduced in v3.3.0. The list of positions is now quite a bit longer and prone to misclicking when manually selecting the position of a device. Adding the option/preference to hide half-height positions for those of us without half-height units would simplify things. ### Database changes _No response_ ### External dependencies _No response_
adam added the type: featurepending closurestatus: under review labels 2025-12-29 20:19:46 +01:00
adam closed this issue 2025-12-29 20:19:46 +01:00
adam commented 2025-12-29 20:19:47 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@kkthxbye-code commented on GitHub (Oct 24, 2022):

and prone to misclicking when manually selecting the position of a device.

I'm not sure I follow why it would be easier to misclick. The distance between elements in the list is the same. The amount of options displayed at once is the same. Why is it easier to misclick U41.5 than to misclick U42 before half-height? Or instead of misclicking do you mean that your users are not seeing the .5.

@kkthxbye-code commented on GitHub (Oct 24, 2022): > and prone to misclicking when manually selecting the position of a device. I'm not sure I follow why it would be easier to misclick. The distance between elements in the list is the same. The amount of options displayed at once is the same. Why is it easier to misclick U41.5 than to misclick U42 before half-height? Or instead of misclicking do you mean that your users are not seeing the `.5`.
adam commented 2025-12-29 20:19:47 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@szeestraten commented on GitHub (Oct 24, 2022):

I'm not sure I follow why it would be easier to misclick. The distance between elements in the list is the same. The amount of options displayed at once is the same. Why is it easier to misclick U41.5 than to misclick U42 before half-height? Or instead of misclicking do you mean that your users are not seeing the .5.

Misclick might be poor choice of word here, sorry.

I mean users (me and my colleagues) not seeing the .5 part.
The .5 positions also gets sorted to the top (first choice) when filtering the dropdown.

@szeestraten commented on GitHub (Oct 24, 2022): > I'm not sure I follow why it would be easier to misclick. The distance between elements in the list is the same. The amount of options displayed at once is the same. Why is it easier to misclick U41.5 than to misclick U42 before half-height? Or instead of misclicking do you mean that your users are not seeing the `.5`. Misclick might be poor choice of word here, sorry. I mean users (me and my colleagues) not seeing the `.5` part. The `.5` positions also gets sorted to the top (first choice) when filtering the dropdown.
adam commented 2025-12-29 20:19:48 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@kkthxbye-code commented on GitHub (Oct 24, 2022):

I mean users (me and my colleagues) not seeing the .5 part.

I have a really hard time seeing how. Maaaybe if they were the same length U4.0 and U4.5, but they are very clearly distinguished currently. Is this a text size issue? How does it look on your screen?

The .5 positions also gets sorted to the top (first choice) when filtering the dropdown.

They get sorted oposite when you choose decending order for your rack. I don't see it making sense changing this behavior.

Currently I don't see a compelling reason for accepting this FR, but I'm open to being convinced. My best advice would be to register a custom validator and reject setting the position to a .5 on devices.

@kkthxbye-code commented on GitHub (Oct 24, 2022): > I mean users (me and my colleagues) not seeing the .5 part. I have a really hard time seeing how. Maaaybe if they were the same length U4.0 and U4.5, but they are very clearly distinguished currently. Is this a text size issue? How does it look on your screen? > The .5 positions also gets sorted to the top (first choice) when filtering the dropdown. They get sorted oposite when you choose decending order for your rack. I don't see it making sense changing this behavior. Currently I don't see a compelling reason for accepting this FR, but I'm open to being convinced. My best advice would be to register a custom validator and reject setting the position to a .5 on devices.
adam commented 2025-12-29 20:19:48 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@szeestraten commented on GitHub (Oct 24, 2022):

I mean users (me and my colleagues) not seeing the .5 part.

I have a really hard time seeing how. Maaaybe if they were the same length U4.0 and U4.5, but they are very clearly distinguished currently. Is this a text size issue? How does it look on your screen?

It looks normal as in the screenshot above, but I guess reading left to right we interpret the first part (U42) of U42.5 and then think that's the right choice when in a hurry not expecting half-height units.

The .5 positions also gets sorted to the top (first choice) when filtering the dropdown.

They get sorted oposite when you choose decending order for your rack. I don't see it making sense changing this behavior.

Ah, that makes sense.

Currently I don't see a compelling reason for accepting this FR, but I'm open to being convinced. My best advice would be to register a custom validator and reject setting the position to a .5 on devices.

That's fair. It's just an UX noise thing in our opinion when we don't have any half-height devices.

Thanks for the custom validator tip, I didn't think of that!

@szeestraten commented on GitHub (Oct 24, 2022): > > I mean users (me and my colleagues) not seeing the .5 part. > > I have a really hard time seeing how. Maaaybe if they were the same length U4.0 and U4.5, but they are very clearly distinguished currently. Is this a text size issue? How does it look on your screen? It looks normal as in the screenshot above, but I guess reading left to right we interpret the first part (**`U42`**) of `U42.5` and then think that's the right choice when in a hurry not expecting half-height units. > > The .5 positions also gets sorted to the top (first choice) when filtering the dropdown. > > They get sorted oposite when you choose decending order for your rack. I don't see it making sense changing this behavior. Ah, that makes sense. > Currently I don't see a compelling reason for accepting this FR, but I'm open to being convinced. My best advice would be to register a custom validator and reject setting the position to a .5 on devices. That's fair. It's just an UX noise thing in our opinion when we don't have any half-height devices. Thanks for the custom validator tip, I didn't think of that!
adam commented 2025-12-29 20:19:48 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@PieterL75 commented on GitHub (Oct 26, 2022):

I'm not fond of those half heights neither... We dont use then at all in our DC's (500+ racks)
I would love an option to disable that if not being used..
Or that you can set per rack if halfheights are supported or not.

@PieterL75 commented on GitHub (Oct 26, 2022): I'm not fond of those half heights neither... We dont use then at all in our DC's (500+ racks) I would love an option to disable that if not being used.. Or that you can set per rack if halfheights are supported or not.
adam commented 2025-12-29 20:19:49 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@IdRatherStand commented on GitHub (Oct 26, 2022):

We also have no half-heights specified so this is worse for us UX wise, having said that for us it would be lower down on our list of FRs to be worked on.

@IdRatherStand commented on GitHub (Oct 26, 2022): We also have no half-heights specified so this is worse for us UX wise, having said that for us it would be lower down on our list of FRs to be worked on.
adam commented 2025-12-29 20:19:49 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

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

I agree. For certain environments, half height devices are useful, but there are also a lot of environments that don't need this. It would be nice to be able to turn this feature off. Ideally, a master setting that turns it off environment wide.

@ghost commented on GitHub (Oct 27, 2022): I agree. For certain environments, half height devices are useful, but there are also a lot of environments that don't need this. It would be nice to be able to turn this feature off. Ideally, a master setting that turns it off environment wide.
adam commented 2025-12-29 20:19:49 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@kkthxbye-code commented on GitHub (Oct 28, 2022):

Personally I don't see this as a good feature for a few reasons:

  • I don't feel like there's been any compelling objective arguments as to why this is a UX issue. Not using the feature is not enough reason for us to implement a toggle.
  • I dislike the idea of adding toggles for features like this. It makes the codebase more complex for (imo) little gain.
  • I think time is better spent elsewhere.

@netbox-community/netbox-core - Any other opinions?

@kkthxbye-code commented on GitHub (Oct 28, 2022): Personally I don't see this as a good feature for a few reasons: - I don't feel like there's been any compelling objective arguments as to why this is a UX issue. Not using the feature is not enough reason for us to implement a toggle. - I dislike the idea of adding toggles for features like this. It makes the codebase more complex for (imo) little gain. - I think time is better spent elsewhere. @netbox-community/netbox-core - Any other opinions?
adam commented 2025-12-29 20:19:49 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@PieterL75 commented on GitHub (Oct 30, 2022):

Still wondering how much this half height is used by the community.
Another option, is to redesign the way devices are placed in a rack. Why not make it a nice UI based thing using the track elevation.
Then we can't be annoyed by the half units in the drop-down.

@PieterL75 commented on GitHub (Oct 30, 2022): Still wondering how much this half height is used by the community. Another option, is to redesign the way devices are placed in a rack. Why not make it a nice UI based thing using the track elevation. Then we can't be annoyed by the half units in the drop-down.
adam commented 2025-12-29 20:19:49 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Nov 2, 2022):

Introducing a configuration parameter that would inhibit a user from entering a valid value is a non-starter. The best I can propose would be a hybrid widget that pre-populates a list of whole numbers from which the user can select and optionally append a ".5" to it. However, the effort required to implement such a solution would be highly disproportionate to simply requiring the user to scroll a bit more.

Still wondering how much this half height is used by the community.

It was one our most requested features over the span of several years.

Why not make it a nice UI based thing using the track elevation.

You're welcome to produce a POC, would love to see it.

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Nov 2, 2022): Introducing a configuration parameter that would inhibit a user from entering a valid value is a non-starter. The best I can propose would be a hybrid widget that pre-populates a list of whole numbers from which the user can select and optionally append a ".5" to it. However, the effort required to implement such a solution would be highly disproportionate to simply requiring the user to scroll a bit more. > Still wondering how much this half height is used by the community. It was one our most requested features over the span of several years. > Why not make it a nice UI based thing using the track elevation. You're welcome to produce a POC, would love to see it.
adam commented 2025-12-29 20:19:50 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@PieterL75 commented on GitHub (Nov 2, 2022):

I wish I had the skills to build it... Looks like I'm better in propagating BGP routes and protecting layer 2 domains, then coding UI's

I would still love to see the option to remove the .5 units from the drop-down. Not a global setting, but an option per rack would be awesome. It is very confusing for people who don't ever use .5 units

P

@PieterL75 commented on GitHub (Nov 2, 2022): I wish I had the skills to build it... Looks like I'm better in propagating BGP routes and protecting layer 2 domains, then coding UI's I would still love to see the option to remove the .5 units from the drop-down. Not a global setting, but an option per rack would be awesome. It is very confusing for people who don't ever use .5 units P
adam commented 2025-12-29 20:19:50 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@pobk commented on GitHub (Nov 15, 2022):

Sub-U addressing is useful for instance where network taps (e.g. Microtel T-30). However, I think the rack position selection process is a bit clunky.

It has a few UI issues... For example, the shading on "consumed" slots in the rack is not absolutely clear so it's sometimes a chore to scroll through to identify the available slots in the list. (This is also the same issue when connecting ports/cables).

Personally, I would have preferred text-field in place of a select box with a bit of client side validation.

I would support some UI options to hide .5Us options.

@pobk commented on GitHub (Nov 15, 2022): Sub-U addressing is useful for instance where network taps (e.g. Microtel T-30). However, I think the rack position selection process is a bit clunky. It has a few UI issues... For example, the shading on "consumed" slots in the rack is not absolutely clear so it's sometimes a chore to scroll through to identify the available slots in the list. (This is also the same issue when connecting ports/cables). Personally, I would have preferred text-field in place of a select box with a bit of client side validation. I would support some UI options to hide .5Us options.
adam commented 2025-12-29 20:19:50 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@ghost commented on GitHub (Dec 4, 2022):

Honestly I like the idea of an input box for the rack unit number a lot better than a drop down.
It's much faster to just type 18, than it is to scroll down fast to get to the bottomish of the drop down and then scroll slow to find exactly RU18.

If my device is at 18.5 .. great, I just type 18.5.

@ghost commented on GitHub (Dec 4, 2022): Honestly I like the idea of an input box for the rack unit number a lot better than a drop down. It's much faster to just type 18, than it is to scroll down fast to get to the bottomish of the drop down and then scroll slow to find exactly RU18. If my device is at 18.5 .. great, I just type 18.5.
adam commented 2025-12-29 20:19:51 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@PieterL75 commented on GitHub (Dec 4, 2022):

Isn't it already like that? When clicking the position, it gives a drop-down that has a text filter field..

But this deviates from the question : an option to hide the half rack units ( from some racks)

@PieterL75 commented on GitHub (Dec 4, 2022): Isn't it already like that? When clicking the position, it gives a drop-down that has a text filter field.. But this deviates from the question : an option to hide the half rack units ( from some racks)
adam commented 2025-12-29 20:19:51 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@ghost commented on GitHub (Dec 4, 2022):

You're right, but it would be nice if hitting 'enter' after typing a value would actually input the value instead of having to click on the number anyway.

@ghost commented on GitHub (Dec 4, 2022): You're right, but it would be nice if hitting 'enter' after typing a value would actually input the value instead of having to click on the number anyway.
adam commented 2025-12-29 20:19:51 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@github-actions[bot] commented on GitHub (Feb 3, 2023):

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 (Feb 3, 2023): 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).
adam commented 2025-12-29 20:19:51 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@sbingner commented on GitHub (Feb 28, 2023):

This "feature" is cluttering the selection and making life difficult. Half RU is a very edge case that should not be shown with no option to get rid of it. Of course having a UI to drop templates onto racks and drag connections for cables would fix all this...

@sbingner commented on GitHub (Feb 28, 2023): This "feature" is cluttering the selection and making life difficult. Half RU is a very edge case that should not be shown with no option to get rid of it. Of course having a UI to drop templates onto racks and drag connections for cables would fix all this...
adam commented 2025-12-29 20:19:52 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Feb 28, 2023):

@sbingner cool, so I take it you're interested in contributing a proposed improvement?

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Feb 28, 2023): @sbingner cool, so I take it you're interested in contributing a proposed improvement?
adam commented 2025-12-29 20:19:52 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Apr 4, 2023):

Closing this out as the implied value seems questionable, and no one has volunteered a specific improvement.

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Apr 4, 2023): Closing this out as the implied value seems questionable, and no one has volunteered a specific improvement.
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 pending closure status: under review 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#7150
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?