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

Add Tenant and Tenant Group to virtual chassis #7528

New Issue
Closed
opened 2025-12-29 20:24:47 +01:00 by adam · 5 comments
adam commented 2025-12-29 20:24:47 +01:00
Owner
Copy Link

Originally created by @ShellBoyAFK on GitHub (Jan 18, 2023).

NetBox version

v3.4.2

Feature type

Change to existing functionality

Proposed functionality

Some of our virtual chassis are located in different sites and in different tenants. Until now, the individual tenants always see all virtual chassis of the other tenants.
This is due to the fact that until now you don't have the possibility to assign them to a teanant / tenant group. So I can not regulate them with permissions in the Django admin area.

Use case

If necessary this would be good, if

  • Tenant A only sees virtual chassis from Tenant A
  • Tenant B sees only virtual chassis of Tenant B

Database changes

?

External dependencies

?

Originally created by @ShellBoyAFK on GitHub (Jan 18, 2023). ### NetBox version v3.4.2 ### Feature type Change to existing functionality ### Proposed functionality Some of our virtual chassis are located in different sites and in different tenants. Until now, the individual tenants always see all virtual chassis of the other tenants. This is due to the fact that until now you don't have the possibility to assign them to a teanant / tenant group. So I can not regulate them with permissions in the Django admin area. ### Use case If necessary this would be good, if - Tenant A only sees virtual chassis from Tenant A - Tenant B sees only virtual chassis of Tenant B ### Database changes ? ### External dependencies ?
adam added the type: featurepending closurestatus: under review labels 2025-12-29 20:24:47 +01:00
adam closed this issue 2025-12-29 20:24:47 +01:00
adam commented 2025-12-29 20:24:48 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (May 25, 2023):

I don't think it makes sense to assign tenancy to a virtual chassis directly. Why wouldn't this be inferred from its master/member devices?

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (May 25, 2023): I don't think it makes sense to assign tenancy to a virtual chassis directly. Why wouldn't this be inferred from its master/member devices?
adam commented 2025-12-29 20:24:48 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@ShellBoyAFK commented on GitHub (Jul 27, 2023):

in short: security/data protection we call it (EU-DSGVO, DS-GVO ISO27001 / ISMS / KHZG) authorisations.

So we don't want tenant A to see tenant B's virtual chassis.

If someone has permission to do something, then they are allowed to do it.

In short, all users, are in different and distinct groups and these have different permissions filtered on tenants and tenants groups.

It's not my fault that security is a by-product in our society.

@ShellBoyAFK commented on GitHub (Jul 27, 2023): in short: security/data protection we call it (EU-DSGVO, DS-GVO ISO27001 / ISMS / KHZG) authorisations. So we don't want tenant A to see tenant B's virtual chassis. If someone has permission to do something, then they are allowed to do it. In short, all users, are in different and distinct groups and these have different permissions filtered on tenants and tenants groups. It's not my fault that security is a by-product in our society.
adam commented 2025-12-29 20:24:48 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@DanSheps commented on GitHub (Jul 27, 2023):

So we don't want tenant A to see tenant B's virtual chassis.

You would add a constraint to the permissions handle this:

{"master__tenant": "Tenant A"}

I agree and do not see a need for tenancy here.

@DanSheps commented on GitHub (Jul 27, 2023): > So we don't want tenant A to see tenant B's virtual chassis. You would add a constraint to the permissions handle this: `{"master__tenant": "Tenant A"}` I agree and do not see a need for tenancy here.
adam commented 2025-12-29 20:24:49 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@github-actions[bot] commented on GitHub (Oct 26, 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 (Oct 26, 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 20:24:49 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@github-actions[bot] commented on GitHub (Nov 26, 2023):

This issue has been automatically closed due to lack of activity. In an effort to reduce noise, please do not comment any further. Note that the core maintainers may elect to reopen this issue at a later date if deemed necessary.

@github-actions[bot] commented on GitHub (Nov 26, 2023): This issue has been automatically closed due to lack of activity. In an effort to reduce noise, please do not comment any further. Note that the core maintainers may elect to reopen this issue at a later date if deemed necessary.
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#7528
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?