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

Allow creation of Notes/Comments for Device Types #85

New Issue
Closed
opened 2025-12-29 15:32:11 +01:00 by adam · 3 comments
adam commented 2025-12-29 15:32:11 +01:00
Owner
Copy Link

Originally created by @bellwood on GitHub (Jun 29, 2016).

Use case, for a PDU I want to document the NEMA plug style, number and style of outlets on PDU and possibly other common information for easy reference

As devices already have comments themselves, it might be nice to have devices show their own comments and then have the device type comments be visible as well (another box I guess)

So for that PDU device type I'd have the common notes and then for the speific device I could notate when I flash the firmware, etc

Originally created by @bellwood on GitHub (Jun 29, 2016). Use case, for a PDU I want to document the NEMA plug style, number and style of outlets on PDU and possibly other common information for easy reference As devices already have comments themselves, it might be nice to have devices show their own comments and then have the device type comments be visible as well (another box I guess) So for that PDU device type I'd have the common notes and then for the speific device I could notate when I flash the firmware, etc
adam closed this issue 2025-12-29 15:32:11 +01:00
adam commented 2025-12-29 15:32:11 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Sep 14, 2016):

I'm hesitant to add any sort of comment capability to device types because I fear it will encourage users to create duplicate, nonstandard device types. For instance, if I define a Juniper EX4300-48T device type, it should not be necessary to convey any additional information about it, since it represents exactly one iteration of a real physical device. I don't want to lead users into a situation where they might create (for example) one instance of the device type without an expansion card and another instance with an expansion card.

Additionally, I'd like to start creating standard device type definitions as described in #451, which might alleviate the need for any custom comments.

Your specific use case, regarding annotating power outlet details, is probably best addressed by extending the power connection models to include voltage, form factor, etc. It's been my intention from early on to eventually extend power outlets to include this information; I just never got around to it. (Honestly I'm surprised this hasn't been more in demand.)

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Sep 14, 2016): I'm hesitant to add any sort of comment capability to device types because I fear it will encourage users to create duplicate, nonstandard device types. For instance, if I define a Juniper EX4300-48T device type, it should not be necessary to convey any additional information about it, since it represents exactly one iteration of a real physical device. I don't want to lead users into a situation where they might create (for example) one instance of the device type without an expansion card and another instance with an expansion card. Additionally, I'd like to start creating standard device type definitions as described in #451, which might alleviate the need for any custom comments. Your specific use case, regarding annotating power outlet details, is probably best addressed by extending the power connection models to include voltage, form factor, etc. It's been my intention from early on to eventually extend power outlets to include this information; I just never got around to it. (Honestly I'm surprised this hasn't been more in demand.)
adam commented 2025-12-29 15:32:12 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@drybjed commented on GitHub (Oct 27, 2016):

(I'll reply here since my related issue was a duplicate of this issue.)

My use case for the device type comments is to add custom information about a particular set of devices , say an URL to the manufacturer's firmware download page, which then could be easily referenced from the particular device page if needed. Right now, if I have for example a set of 50 Juniper switches, I can either add an URL to each device comment field, one at a time, or keep a duplicate database of device types somewhere else. Having a way to add custom information to a device type would make the requirement of an additional database irrelevant.

Alternatively, I tried to add at least a custom field to a device type which could hold an URL to a wiki page which could contain additional information, but unfortunately there's no way to add custom fields to device types, only devices. So the problem remains the same.

I hope that you reconsider your decision about this issue. If you really don't want to add a free form comment field to device types, I think that at least an additional field which could hold an URL to somewhere else with more information would greatly benefit the NetBox usability.

@drybjed commented on GitHub (Oct 27, 2016): (I'll reply here since my related issue was a duplicate of this issue.) My use case for the device type comments is to add custom information about a particular set of devices , say an URL to the manufacturer's firmware download page, which then could be easily referenced from the particular device page if needed. Right now, if I have for example a set of 50 Juniper switches, I can either add an URL to each device comment field, one at a time, or keep a duplicate database of device types somewhere else. Having a way to add custom information to a device type would make the requirement of an additional database irrelevant. Alternatively, I tried to add at least a custom field to a device type which could hold an URL to a wiki page which could contain additional information, but unfortunately there's no way to add custom fields to device types, only devices. So the problem remains the same. I hope that you reconsider your decision about this issue. If you really don't want to add a free form comment field to device types, I think that at least an additional field which could hold an URL to somewhere else with more information would greatly benefit the NetBox usability.
adam commented 2025-12-29 15:32:12 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Dec 16, 2016):

#722 was just completed to enable custom fields for device types. We can probably add a comments field as well.

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Dec 16, 2016): #722 was just completed to enable custom fields for device types. We can probably add a comments field as well.
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
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#85
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?