Perform an update of the devices already created, when their device_type is modified #8868

Closed
opened 2025-12-29 20:42:19 +01:00 by adam · 4 comments
Owner

Originally created by @ShadowCipher09 on GitHub (Nov 22, 2023).

NetBox version

v3.6.4

Feature type

Data model extension

Proposed functionality

Could it be that when a device_type is modified, the devices of that "device_type" are modified, even though they are already created? That is to say, that the devices already made are updated

Use case

Keeping the devices updated or giving the option of when a device_type to update the old ones or not, if not I have to modify the existing ones one by one and when I have more than 300 it is very heavy...

Database changes

Perform an update of the devices already created

External dependencies

No response

Originally created by @ShadowCipher09 on GitHub (Nov 22, 2023). ### NetBox version v3.6.4 ### Feature type Data model extension ### Proposed functionality Could it be that when a device_type is modified, the devices of that "device_type" are modified, even though they are already created? That is to say, that the devices already made are updated ### Use case Keeping the devices updated or giving the option of when a device_type to update the old ones or not, if not I have to modify the existing ones one by one and when I have more than 300 it is very heavy... ### Database changes Perform an update of the devices already created ### External dependencies _No response_
adam added the type: featurestatus: revisions needed labels 2025-12-29 20:42:19 +01:00
adam closed this issue 2025-12-29 20:42:19 +01:00
Author
Owner

@abhi1693 commented on GitHub (Nov 22, 2023):

Thank you for your interest in extending NetBox. Unfortunately, the information you have provided does not constitute an actionable feature request. Per our contributing guide, a feature request must include a thorough description of the proposed functionality, including any database changes, new views or API endpoints, and so on. It must also include a detailed use case justifying its implementation. If you would like to elaborate on your proposal, please modify your post above. If sufficient detail is not added, this issue will be closed.

@abhi1693 commented on GitHub (Nov 22, 2023): Thank you for your interest in extending NetBox. Unfortunately, the information you have provided does not constitute an actionable feature request. Per our [contributing guide](https://github.com/netbox-community/netbox/blob/develop/CONTRIBUTING.md), a feature request must include a thorough description of the proposed functionality, including any database changes, new views or API endpoints, and so on. It must also include a detailed use case justifying its implementation. If you would like to elaborate on your proposal, please modify your post above. If sufficient detail is not added, this issue will be closed.
Author
Owner

@gdprdatasubect commented on GitHub (Nov 22, 2023):

Well, it depends on how you would want to handle changed or linked objects.
E.g. having 2 Network-Interfaces and deleting one, what should happen if both of them are connected?

@gdprdatasubect commented on GitHub (Nov 22, 2023): Well, it depends on how you would want to handle changed or linked objects. E.g. having 2 Network-Interfaces and deleting one, what should happen if both of them are connected?
Author
Owner

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Nov 22, 2023):

@gdprdatasubect this is precisely why the functionality does not exist today. NetBox should never make assumptions on behalf of the user. It has been discussed at length in previous issues, and no workable implementation has been proposed.

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Nov 22, 2023): @gdprdatasubect this is precisely why the functionality does not exist today. NetBox should never make assumptions on behalf of the user. It has been discussed at length in previous issues, and no workable implementation has been proposed.
Author
Owner

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Dec 14, 2023):

Closing this out as this proposal has already been considered and rejected in the past for the reason I cite above, and no further detail has been offered.

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Dec 14, 2023): Closing this out as this proposal has already been considered and rejected in the past for the reason I cite above, and no further detail has been offered.
Sign in to join this conversation.
1 Participants
Notifications
Due Date
No due date set.
Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference: starred/netbox#8868