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

Default values in custom fields applied to imported data #7296

New Issue
Closed
opened 2025-12-29 20:21:27 +01:00 by adam · 6 comments
adam commented 2025-12-29 20:21:27 +01:00
Owner
Copy Link

Originally created by @ejstover on GitHub (Nov 29, 2022).

NetBox version

v3.2.7

Feature type

Change to existing functionality

Proposed functionality

A custom field with a default value should always be applied to all future new objects, including objects that are imported.

Use case

I personally use the DeviceTypeLibrary, plus a Zabbix sync script to sync NetBox inventory to Zabbix monitoring via API. Part of the requirements of the sync script is a custom field in the dcim.devicetype that specifies the Zabbix monitoring template to use. I've defined a default value that is applied when manually creating a device type, but not when imported via YAML/JSON.
2022-11-28 20_54_34-Add a new device type _ NetBox — Mozilla Firefox
2022-11-28 20_55_02-Editing device type MX84 _ NetBox — Mozilla Firefox

I could see reasoning against this functionality. I have patch panel device types that don't apply to the use case I've listed above.

Database changes

No response

External dependencies

No response

Originally created by @ejstover on GitHub (Nov 29, 2022). ### NetBox version v3.2.7 ### Feature type Change to existing functionality ### Proposed functionality A custom field with a default value should always be applied to all future new objects, including objects that are imported. ### Use case I personally use the DeviceTypeLibrary, plus a [Zabbix sync script](https://github.com/TheNetworkGuy/netbox-zabbix-sync) to sync NetBox inventory to Zabbix monitoring via API. Part of the requirements of the sync script is a custom field in the dcim.devicetype that specifies the Zabbix monitoring template to use. I've defined a default value that is applied when manually creating a device type, but not when imported via YAML/JSON. ![2022-11-28 20_54_34-Add a new device type _ NetBox — Mozilla Firefox](https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/19699277/204419331-83c157c3-7a82-4224-9846-3fece3943f9f.png) ![2022-11-28 20_55_02-Editing device type MX84 _ NetBox — Mozilla Firefox](https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/19699277/204419333-78f33295-2a56-45e7-9ae4-f025c25b8348.png) I could see reasoning against this functionality. I have patch panel device types that don't apply to the use case I've listed above. ### Database changes _No response_ ### External dependencies _No response_
adam added the type: feature label 2025-12-29 20:21:27 +01:00
adam closed this issue 2025-12-29 20:21:27 +01:00
adam commented 2025-12-29 20:21:28 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@atownson commented on GitHub (Jan 18, 2023):

I have found if you define a required custom field for Interfaces with a defined default value, when instantiating a new Device, the value of that custom field for the created Interfaces is null. Could we please expand the scope of this request to more than the bulk import functionality and ensure all means of creating models are covered (device templates, scripts, etc.)? Thanks.

@atownson commented on GitHub (Jan 18, 2023): I have found if you define a required custom field for Interfaces with a defined default value, when instantiating a new Device, the value of that custom field for the created Interfaces is `null`. Could we please expand the scope of this request to more than the bulk import functionality and ensure all means of creating models are covered (device templates, scripts, etc.)? Thanks.
adam commented 2025-12-29 20:21:28 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Feb 27, 2023):

This can likely be addresses using the same approach as #11565.

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Feb 27, 2023): This can likely be addresses using the same approach as #11565.
adam commented 2025-12-29 20:21:28 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@abhi1693 commented on GitHub (May 5, 2023):

@jeremystretch The issue that you have mentioned as a reference, should that not be applied commonly to all models?

@abhi1693 commented on GitHub (May 5, 2023): @jeremystretch The issue that you have mentioned as a reference, should that not be applied commonly to all models?
adam commented 2025-12-29 20:21:28 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (May 5, 2023):

@abhi1693 I believe so, yes. It probably needs to be implemented on the base model and/or views. I haven't really dug into it.

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (May 5, 2023): @abhi1693 I believe so, yes. It probably needs to be implemented on the base model and/or views. I haven't really dug into it.
adam commented 2025-12-29 20:21:29 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@github-actions[bot] commented on GitHub (Aug 4, 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 (Aug 4, 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 20:21:29 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (May 14, 2024):

Treating this as a bug per #16073

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (May 14, 2024): Treating this as a bug per #16073
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: 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#7296
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?