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

Preconfigured rack filtering for B device field in cables form #8154

New Issue
Closed
opened 2025-12-29 20:33:09 +01:00 by adam · 4 comments
adam commented 2025-12-29 20:33:09 +01:00
Owner
Copy Link

Originally created by @coloHsq on GitHub (Jun 1, 2023).

NetBox version

v3.5.1

Feature type

Change to existing functionality

Proposed functionality

It would be great to have the possibility to have back the old behavior for cables form, in which the B side device field came pre filtered to display devices in the same rack of the A side device.
I'm not requesting a rollback, as for my use case it would be enough just to have the B side device field pre filtered with the same rack as A, maybe with the option to have it enabled/disabled by default.

P.S. I've played a bit with the code, and passing the b rack pk from the url params down to device field's query_param in get_cable_form() seems to be working fine.

Use case

In our datacenter we're using End of Row architecture, so almost 90% of the cables inserted on Netbox by common users are confined in the same rack, as almost everything runs trough patch panels.
Given this design, having the B side device field pre configured saves a lot of time and, from what I've seen, reduces the error risk.

Database changes

None

External dependencies

None

Originally created by @coloHsq on GitHub (Jun 1, 2023). ### NetBox version v3.5.1 ### Feature type Change to existing functionality ### Proposed functionality It would be great to have the possibility to have back the old behavior for cables form, in which the B side device field came pre filtered to display devices in the same rack of the A side device. I'm not requesting a rollback, as for my use case it would be enough just to have the B side device field pre filtered with the same rack as A, maybe with the option to have it enabled/disabled by default. P.S. I've played a bit with the code, and passing the b rack pk from the url params down to device field's query_param in get_cable_form() seems to be working fine. ### Use case In our datacenter we're using End of Row architecture, so almost 90% of the cables inserted on Netbox by common users are confined in the same rack, as almost everything runs trough patch panels. Given this design, having the B side device field pre configured saves a lot of time and, from what I've seen, reduces the error risk. ### Database changes None ### External dependencies None
adam added the status: duplicate label 2025-12-29 20:33:09 +01:00
adam closed this issue 2025-12-29 20:33:09 +01:00
adam commented 2025-12-29 20:33:09 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@martinum4 commented on GitHub (Jun 1, 2023):

I already asked this with #12704

@martinum4 commented on GitHub (Jun 1, 2023): I already asked this with #12704
adam commented 2025-12-29 20:33:09 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@Chiniquy commented on GitHub (Jun 7, 2023):

I've also been struggling a bit with this since the latest updates. I agree that a pre-filter for the existing rack would save a lot of time during cable creation. In my experience the vast majority of cables are within the same rack, or at the very least within the same location.

@Chiniquy commented on GitHub (Jun 7, 2023): I've also been struggling a bit with this since the latest updates. I agree that a pre-filter for the existing rack would save a lot of time during cable creation. In my experience the vast majority of cables are within the same rack, or at the very least within the same location.
adam commented 2025-12-29 20:33:10 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@DanSheps commented on GitHub (Jun 7, 2023):

Duplicate of #12704

@DanSheps commented on GitHub (Jun 7, 2023): Duplicate of #12704
adam commented 2025-12-29 20:33:10 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@DanSheps commented on GitHub (Jun 7, 2023):

Thank you for submitting this issue, however it appears that this topic has already been raised. Please see issue #12704 for further discussion.

@DanSheps commented on GitHub (Jun 7, 2023): Thank you for submitting this issue, however it appears that this topic has already been raised. Please see issue #12704 for 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 status: duplicate
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#8154
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?