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

Assigning an IP to a device interface is now overly cumbersome? #8092

New Issue
Closed
opened 2025-12-29 20:32:18 +01:00 by adam · 3 comments
adam commented 2025-12-29 20:32:18 +01:00
Owner
Copy Link

Originally created by @mgob on GitHub (May 19, 2023).

NetBox version

v3.5.1

Python version

3.8

Steps to Reproduce

  1. Find an available IP address
  2. Click edit or Add
  3. Navigate to assgin to device, interfaces for ALL devices are listed by default but you have to open the enhanced search window to the right to get to search by device. This did not used to be the case.

Expected Behavior

Ability to filter by device FIRST before filtering by interface

Observed Behavior

Interfaces are listed without devices for assigning to a device.

Either this is a regression or a poor UI change that adds an unnecessary step to assigning an IP to a device interface. Alternatively I'm a moron and missed a settings change somewhere along the way to make this not the default behavior LOL.

IMG_0106

Originally created by @mgob on GitHub (May 19, 2023). ### NetBox version v3.5.1 ### Python version 3.8 ### Steps to Reproduce 1. Find an available IP address 2. Click edit or Add 3. Navigate to assgin to device, interfaces for ALL devices are listed by default but you have to open the enhanced search window to the right to get to search by device. This did not used to be the case. ### Expected Behavior Ability to filter by device FIRST before filtering by interface ### Observed Behavior Interfaces are listed without devices for assigning to a device. Either this is a regression or a poor UI change that adds an unnecessary step to assigning an IP to a device interface. Alternatively I'm a moron and missed a settings change somewhere along the way to make this not the default behavior LOL. ![IMG_0106](https://github.com/netbox-community/netbox/assets/6238776/03a6937a-4590-4d9c-9d52-8d3c7f68d8d4)
adam added the type: bugstatus: revisions needed labels 2025-12-29 20:32:18 +01:00
adam closed this issue 2025-12-29 20:32:19 +01:00
adam commented 2025-12-29 20:32:19 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@mgob commented on GitHub (May 19, 2023):

It would appear this is related to #10757 ?

@mgob commented on GitHub (May 19, 2023): It would appear this is related to #10757 ?
adam commented 2025-12-29 20:32:20 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jsenecal commented on GitHub (May 20, 2023):

Thank you for opening a bug report. It seems that the described functionality is intended behavior. If you meant to open a feature request instead, please close this issue and open a new one using the feature request template. Otherwise, please revise your post above to elaborate on why you believe the observed behavior is flawed.

@jsenecal commented on GitHub (May 20, 2023): Thank you for opening a bug report. It seems that the described functionality is intended behavior. If you meant to open a feature request instead, please close this issue and open a new one using the [feature request template](https://github.com/netbox-community/netbox/issues/new?template=feature_request.md). Otherwise, please revise your post above to elaborate on why you believe the observed behavior is flawed.
adam commented 2025-12-29 20:32:20 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@mgob commented on GitHub (May 20, 2023):

Thank you for opening a bug report. It seems that the described functionality is intended behavior. If you meant to open a feature request instead, please close this issue and open a new one using the feature request template. Otherwise, please revise your post above to elaborate on why you believe the observed behavior is flawed.

It’s very odd intended behavior if it truly is, I’ll open a feature request. I’ve got numerous user complaints over this change.

@mgob commented on GitHub (May 20, 2023): > Thank you for opening a bug report. It seems that the described functionality is intended behavior. If you meant to open a feature request instead, please close this issue and open a new one using the [feature request template](https://github.com/netbox-community/netbox/issues/new?template=feature_request.md). Otherwise, please revise your post above to elaborate on why you believe the observed behavior is flawed. It’s very odd intended behavior if it truly is, I’ll open a feature request. I’ve got numerous user complaints over this change.
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: revisions needed type: bug
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#8092
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?