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

"Idempotency" of PATCH for the REST API #7877

New Issue
Closed
opened 2025-12-29 20:29:16 +01:00 by adam · 4 comments
adam commented 2025-12-29 20:29:16 +01:00
Owner
Copy Link

Originally created by @amhn on GitHub (Apr 6, 2023).

NetBox version

v3.5-beta

Feature type

Change to existing functionality

Proposed functionality

The different API endpoints for a model should accept/return the same Model[1].

For example it should be possible to use the output of GET /api/ipam/ip-addresses/1/ and either POST it to /api/ipam/ip-addresses/ or PATCH it to /api/ipam/ip-addresses/1/ and (if the new object does not violate uniqueness constraints) get an updated or new object.

[1] This does not mean read_only fields should become writable, read_only fields are already ignored most of the time on PATCH/POST requests.

Use case

This would make it easier for a new user to discover the API because he can just GET an existing object, modify some fields and POST/PATCH it to get the desired changes.

For script development this would also help, because the returned object can be the same as sent one.

Database changes

No response

External dependencies

No response

Originally created by @amhn on GitHub (Apr 6, 2023). ### NetBox version v3.5-beta ### Feature type Change to existing functionality ### Proposed functionality The different API endpoints for a model should accept/return the same Model[1]. For example it should be possible to use the output of GET /api/ipam/ip-addresses/1/ and either POST it to /api/ipam/ip-addresses/ or PATCH it to /api/ipam/ip-addresses/1/ and (if the new object does not violate uniqueness constraints) get an updated or new object. [1] This does not mean read_only fields should become writable, read_only fields are already ignored most of the time on PATCH/POST requests. ### Use case This would make it easier for a new user to discover the API because he can just GET an existing object, modify some fields and POST/PATCH it to get the desired changes. For script development this would also help, because the returned object can be the same as sent one. ### Database changes _No response_ ### External dependencies _No response_
adam added the type: feature label 2025-12-29 20:29:16 +01:00
adam closed this issue 2025-12-29 20:29:19 +01:00
adam commented 2025-12-29 20:29:21 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@amhn commented on GitHub (Apr 6, 2023):

Currently I did identify 3 Problems:

  • role field in Ipaddress is null on GET, but does not accept null on PATCH/POST. Filed as separate bug because this worked in 3.4. #12195
  • ChoiceFields are dicts in GET request, but strings in POST/PATCH. Handling them can be added to netbox.api.fields.ChoiceField without breaking existing behaviour
  • Nested Object are already accepted, but read_only fields are not ignored. This can be added to netbox.api.serailizers.WritableNestedSerializer similar to ModelSerializer in django-rest-framework. That change should also be backwards compatible to existing behaviour.

I can work on the last two issues and provide a PR. This does not necessarily need to happen in the beta phase, because these changes should not affect the current documented behaviour.

Another thing is reflecting these changes in the API spec. But since the current documented behaviour is not affected, this could be added later.

@amhn commented on GitHub (Apr 6, 2023): Currently I did identify 3 Problems: - ~role field in Ipaddress is null on GET, but does not accept null on PATCH/POST. Filed as separate bug because this worked in 3.4. #12195~ - ChoiceFields are dicts in GET request, but strings in POST/PATCH. Handling them can be added to netbox.api.fields.ChoiceField without breaking existing behaviour - Nested Object are already accepted, but read_only fields are not ignored. This can be added to netbox.api.serailizers.WritableNestedSerializer similar to ModelSerializer in django-rest-framework. That change should also be backwards compatible to existing behaviour. I can work on the last two issues and provide a PR. This does not necessarily need to happen in the beta phase, because these changes should not affect the current documented behaviour. Another thing is reflecting these changes in the API spec. But since the current documented behaviour is not affected, this could be added later.
adam commented 2025-12-29 20:29:22 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@abhi1693 commented on GitHub (Apr 7, 2023):

Regarding the choice field, as a developer it makes the most sense to me the way it's working currently. Changing it to as mentioned will only cause confusion and it's unnecessary as the label in the dict cannot change in a post or patch. If a user tried to send a different label for an existing value, they would expect that to change but that's not possible.

@abhi1693 commented on GitHub (Apr 7, 2023): Regarding the choice field, as a developer it makes the most sense to me the way it's working currently. Changing it to as mentioned will only cause confusion and it's unnecessary as the label in the dict cannot change in a post or patch. If a user tried to send a different label for an existing value, they would expect that to change but that's not possible.
adam commented 2025-12-29 20:29:22 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

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

I'm fine with the proposed changes if they can be implemented in a manner that does not break backward compatibility. @amhn I'll assign this to you since you kindly offered to submit a PR; happy to provide any guidance.

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (May 4, 2023): I'm fine with the proposed changes **if** they can be implemented in a manner that does not break backward compatibility. @amhn I'll assign this to you since you kindly offered to submit a PR; happy to provide any guidance.
adam commented 2025-12-29 20:29:22 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (May 22, 2024):

Closing this out as the assigned volunteer has not completed any work and there's been no further discussion.

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (May 22, 2024): Closing this out as the assigned volunteer has not completed any work and there's been no further discussion.
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#7877
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?