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

Datasheet Attribute for Device Types #7854

New Issue
Closed
opened 2025-12-29 20:29:01 +01:00 by adam · 10 comments
adam commented 2025-12-29 20:29:01 +01:00
Owner
Copy Link

Originally created by @phillf on GitHub (Apr 2, 2023).

NetBox version

v3.4.7

Feature type

New functionality

Proposed functionality

  • Add attribute to device types and module types for datasheet URLs
  • Append a link with the display text of "View Datasheet" to the Description field of the Chassis/Module Type table

Use case

Creating a consistent expectation of where the reference to the datasheet is found and how it's referenced.

Database changes

Create new field named DatasheetUrl for Device and Module Types.

External dependencies

No response

Originally created by @phillf on GitHub (Apr 2, 2023). ### NetBox version v3.4.7 ### Feature type New functionality ### Proposed functionality - Add attribute to device types and module types for datasheet URLs - Append a link with the display text of "View Datasheet" to the Description field of the Chassis/Module Type table ### Use case Creating a consistent expectation of where the reference to the datasheet is found and how it's referenced. ### Database changes Create new field named DatasheetUrl for Device and Module Types. ### External dependencies _No response_
adam added the type: featurepending closurestatus: under review labels 2025-12-29 20:29:01 +01:00
adam closed this issue 2025-12-29 20:29:01 +01:00
adam commented 2025-12-29 20:29:02 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@abhi1693 commented on GitHub (Apr 2, 2023):

This may also be useful in module types

@abhi1693 commented on GitHub (Apr 2, 2023): This may also be useful in module types
adam commented 2025-12-29 20:29:02 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@phillf commented on GitHub (Apr 2, 2023):

This may also be useful in module types

Agreed. Feature Request amended.

@phillf commented on GitHub (Apr 2, 2023): > This may also be useful in module types Agreed. Feature Request amended.
adam commented 2025-12-29 20:29:02 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Apr 3, 2023):

I find myself on the fence here. Most people just link to relevant documentation in the object's comments. This enables the addition of context pertaining to each link as well.

Creating a consistent expectation of where the reference to the datasheet is found and how it's referenced.

  • Is there a need to consume these links programmatically?
  • What do you do if there are multiple links to relevant documentation?
  • Is a custom field not sufficient for this purpose?
@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Apr 3, 2023): I find myself on the fence here. Most people just link to relevant documentation in the object's comments. This enables the addition of context pertaining to each link as well. > Creating a consistent expectation of where the reference to the datasheet is found and how it's referenced. - Is there a need to consume these links programmatically? - What do you do if there are multiple links to relevant documentation? - Is a custom field not sufficient for this purpose?
adam commented 2025-12-29 20:29:02 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

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

  • Is there a need to consume these links programmatically?

I could see this being useful where other tools are concerned when it comes to pulling data out of Netbox via API. Having it it as "free text" in the comments doesn't really make it easy to pull this data whereas having it as discrete data would easily allow this.

  • What do you do if there are multiple links to relevant documentation?

Maybe adding an attribute of the link being something like "Publication Type" would be useful here. (ie. Service Manual, Parts Catalogue, Datasheet, etc)

  • Is a custom field not sufficient for this purpose?

That would be but the point of the feature request was to make this more consistent across instances. Relying on the custom field means that it could be named slightly differently from instance to instance.

This request was actually inspired by reading through some of the device-type template YML files and wondering why the datasheet links were free text comments rather than discreet data.

@phillf commented on GitHub (Apr 4, 2023): > * Is there a need to consume these links programmatically? I could see this being useful where other tools are concerned when it comes to pulling data out of Netbox via API. Having it it as "free text" in the comments doesn't really make it easy to pull this data whereas having it as discrete data would easily allow this. > * What do you do if there are multiple links to relevant documentation? Maybe adding an attribute of the link being something like "Publication Type" would be useful here. (ie. Service Manual, Parts Catalogue, Datasheet, etc) > * Is a custom field not sufficient for this purpose? That would be but the point of the feature request was to make this more consistent across instances. Relying on the custom field means that it could be named slightly differently from instance to instance. This request was actually inspired by reading through some of the device-type template YML files and wondering why the datasheet links were free text comments rather than discreet data.
adam commented 2025-12-29 20:29:03 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

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

From a technical standpoint, I ManyToOne (FK) or a M2M relationship would be best for this with a new model "ExternalLinks". Similar to how our contacts are done. That said, this could also be perfectly suited for a plugin.

A rough model:

LinkType:
  int id
  str name

Link:
  int id
  LinkType type
  str name
  str url

LinkAssignment:
  GFK object
  Link link
@DanSheps commented on GitHub (Apr 4, 2023): From a technical standpoint, I ManyToOne (FK) or a M2M relationship would be best for this with a new model "ExternalLinks". Similar to how our contacts are done. That said, this could also be perfectly suited for a plugin. A rough model: ``` LinkType: int id str name Link: int id LinkType type str name str url LinkAssignment: GFK object Link link ```
adam commented 2025-12-29 20:29:03 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@phillf commented on GitHub (Apr 9, 2023):

@jeremystretch, Given the answers I provided and @DanSheps sggested model I am curious where you stand now.

@phillf commented on GitHub (Apr 9, 2023): @jeremystretch, Given the answers I provided and @DanSheps sggested model I am curious where you stand now.
adam commented 2025-12-29 20:29:03 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Apr 10, 2023):

I don't see any reason this use case isn't served by a custom field. And I definitely don't think there's any need for a separate model tracking discrete links.

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Apr 10, 2023): I don't see any reason this use case isn't served by a custom field. And I definitely don't think there's any need for a separate model tracking discrete links.
adam commented 2025-12-29 20:29:03 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@DanSheps commented on GitHub (Jun 19, 2023):

I have to agree with @jeremystretch here. Custom fields, in conjunction with custom links perhaps, are the best to provide the right set of options.

However, if there is a need for more robust tracking, I would encourage you to create a plugin for it and publish it so that is can be consumed by others.

@DanSheps commented on GitHub (Jun 19, 2023): I have to agree with @jeremystretch here. Custom fields, in conjunction with custom links perhaps, are the best to provide the right set of options. However, if there is a need for more robust tracking, I would encourage you to create a plugin for it and publish it so that is can be consumed by others.
adam commented 2025-12-29 20:29:03 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@github-actions[bot] commented on GitHub (Sep 18, 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 (Sep 18, 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 20:29:04 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@github-actions[bot] commented on GitHub (Oct 19, 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 (Oct 19, 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#7854
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?