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

Include request ID in REST API responses #7387

New Issue
Closed
opened 2025-12-29 20:22:45 +01:00 by adam · 4 comments
adam commented 2025-12-29 20:22:45 +01:00
Owner
Copy Link

Originally created by @roberteriksen1979 on GitHub (Dec 20, 2022).

Originally assigned to: @jeremystretch on GitHub.

NetBox version

3.2.5

Feature type

Change to existing functionality

Proposed functionality

When changing an item, using the REST API, could it be possible to get the changelog id returned immediately?
f.x as an X-ChangeId header or similar?

Use case

When multiple systems update various properties of the same entities in Netbox, we can not always rely on simply getting the latest change via the extras/object-changes endpoint.
Also getting the change id immediately would save an otherwise unnecessary API request.

Database changes

No response

External dependencies

No response

Originally created by @roberteriksen1979 on GitHub (Dec 20, 2022). Originally assigned to: @jeremystretch on GitHub. ### NetBox version 3.2.5 ### Feature type Change to existing functionality ### Proposed functionality When changing an item, using the REST API, could it be possible to get the changelog id returned immediately? f.x as an X-ChangeId header or similar? ### Use case When multiple systems update various properties of the same entities in Netbox, we can not always rely on simply getting the latest change via the extras/object-changes endpoint. Also getting the change id immediately would save an otherwise unnecessary API request. ### Database changes _No response_ ### External dependencies _No response_
adam added the status: acceptedtype: feature labels 2025-12-29 20:22:45 +01:00
adam closed this issue 2025-12-29 20:22:45 +01:00
adam commented 2025-12-29 20:22:46 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Dec 22, 2022):

When changing an item, using the REST API, could it be possible to get the changelog id returned immediately?

This could be feasible currently, however we need to consider future plans to generate changelog records outside of the request/response cycle (see #11202), which would inhibit us from returning the ObjectChange ID directly. (In this scenario, the ObjectChange would not be created until just after the response has been sent.) Additionally, bulk changes would result in the creation of multiple ObjectChanges, so we'd need a way to convey those.

Alternatively, we could attach to the API response the UUID of the request, which could then be used to query for all ObjectChange records relevant to the specific request.

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Dec 22, 2022): > When changing an item, using the REST API, could it be possible to get the changelog id returned immediately? This could be feasible currently, however we need to consider future plans to generate changelog records outside of the request/response cycle (see #11202), which would inhibit us from returning the ObjectChange ID directly. (In this scenario, the ObjectChange would not be created until just _after_ the response has been sent.) Additionally, bulk changes would result in the creation of multiple ObjectChanges, so we'd need a way to convey those. Alternatively, we could attach to the API response the UUID of the request, which could then be used to query for all ObjectChange records relevant to the specific request.
adam commented 2025-12-29 20:22:46 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

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

Alternatively, we could attach to the API response the UUID of the request, which could then be used to query for all ObjectChange records relevant to the specific request.

I'm going to move this to "needs milestone" with the assumption that this is the preferred approach. Many changes can result in the creation of multiple new change records, and conveying them reliably and succinctly would be difficult. Returning the unique request ID is a lot more portable.

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Jan 5, 2023): > Alternatively, we could attach to the API response the UUID of the request, which could then be used to query for all ObjectChange records relevant to the specific request. I'm going to move this to "needs milestone" with the assumption that this is the preferred approach. Many changes can result in the creation of multiple new change records, and conveying them reliably and succinctly would be difficult. Returning the unique request ID is a lot more portable.
adam commented 2025-12-29 20:22:47 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@arthanson commented on GitHub (Jan 6, 2023):

Note: This would be similar to a correlation ID in logging (which might also be useful) There are two Django packages that do this that could be used for inspiration https://github.com/snok/django-guid and https://github.com/Polyconseil/django-cid

@arthanson commented on GitHub (Jan 6, 2023): **Note:** This would be similar to a correlation ID in logging (which might also be useful) There are two Django packages that do this that could be used for inspiration https://github.com/snok/django-guid and https://github.com/Polyconseil/django-cid
adam commented 2025-12-29 20:22:47 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@tyler-8 commented on GitHub (Jan 13, 2023):

Just to add - I think it makes sense for the request UUID to be returned as part of the response headers, rather than the payload itself. In other APIs where similar type of data is returned, headers seem to be the common pattern.

@tyler-8 commented on GitHub (Jan 13, 2023): Just to add - I think it makes sense for the request UUID to be returned as part of the response headers, rather than the payload itself. In other APIs where similar type of data is returned, headers seem to be the common pattern.
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#7387
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?