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

Ability to change "Order interfaces by" option for a particular device (and/or propagate changes in Device Type to Devices) #855

New Issue
Closed
opened 2025-12-29 16:26:21 +01:00 by adam · 3 comments
adam commented 2025-12-29 16:26:21 +01:00
Owner
Copy Link

Originally created by @eliezerlp on GitHub (Apr 10, 2017).

Issue type: feature request

Ability to change "Order interfaces by" option for a particular device (and/or propagate changes in Device Type to Devices).

I added a Device Type and didn't really understand what this meant. After adding a Device there is no way to change whatever option was inherited from the Device Type.

Originally created by @eliezerlp on GitHub (Apr 10, 2017). ### Issue type: feature request Ability to change "Order interfaces by" option for a particular device (and/or propagate changes in Device Type to Devices). I added a Device Type and didn't really understand what this meant. After adding a Device there is no way to change whatever option was inherited from the Device Type.
adam closed this issue 2025-12-29 16:26:21 +01:00
adam commented 2025-12-29 16:26:22 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Apr 10, 2017):

From the docs:

A device type represents a particular hardware model that exists in the real world. Device types describe the physical attributes of a device (rack height and depth), its class (e.g. console server, PDU, etc.), and its individual components (console, power, and data).

Interface ordering is typically going to be the same for all instances of a device type, therefore it's defined on the parent device type rather than on each individual device. Does that make sense? Do you have a use case where this is not sufficient?

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Apr 10, 2017): From [the docs](http://netbox.readthedocs.io/en/latest/data-model/dcim/#device-types): > A device type represents a particular hardware model that exists in the real world. Device types describe the physical attributes of a device (rack height and depth), its class (e.g. console server, PDU, etc.), and its individual components (console, power, and data). Interface ordering is typically going to be the same for all instances of a device type, therefore it's defined on the parent device type rather than on each individual device. Does that make sense? Do you have a use case where this is not sufficient?
adam commented 2025-12-29 16:26:22 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@eliezerlp commented on GitHub (Apr 10, 2017):

I agree that defining it globally is good enough. The problem comes about when the global definition in Device Types is changed and it doesn't propagate to Devices that were created from it. At the same time there is no way to change it for an already created device so it forces deleting and re-adding devices...

@eliezerlp commented on GitHub (Apr 10, 2017): I agree that defining it globally is good enough. The problem comes about when the global definition in Device Types is changed and it doesn't propagate to Devices that were created from it. At the same time there is no way to change it for an already created device so it forces deleting and re-adding devices...
adam commented 2025-12-29 16:26:23 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Apr 10, 2017):

Each device references the interface_ordering setting of its parent device type. If you change the setting on the device type, it is effectively changed on all instances of that device type as well, immediately.

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Apr 10, 2017): Each device references the `interface_ordering` setting of its parent device type. If you change the setting on the device type, it is effectively changed on all instances of that device type as well, immediately.
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#855
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?