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

Disallow deletion of physical port if there are objects depending on it #8890

New Issue
Closed
opened 2025-12-29 20:42:33 +01:00 by adam · 2 comments
adam commented 2025-12-29 20:42:33 +01:00
Owner
Copy Link

Originally created by @dejantep on GitHub (Nov 28, 2023).

NetBox version

3.5.7

Feature type

Change to existing functionality

Proposed functionality

User should not be able to delete a physical port if:

  • port has cable attached
  • port is parent to other interfaces such as LAG and virtual child interfaces

Every attempt to delete a port under those circumstances should result in "denied" message with text "port in use" or similar.
If possible message should show objects that are blocking deletion, similar to another FR that has been accepted.

Use case

In my opinion this is fundamental feature of a system like Netbox where you need to keep your data in order. There should be a natural hierarchy of elements that are depending on each other. Just like you cannot remove site if there are devices assigned to it.

This would keep objects safe from accidental removal and possible nightmare with orphan objects.

Database changes

not sure

External dependencies

none

Originally created by @dejantep on GitHub (Nov 28, 2023). ### NetBox version 3.5.7 ### Feature type Change to existing functionality ### Proposed functionality User should not be able to delete a physical port if: * port has cable attached * port is parent to other interfaces such as LAG and virtual child interfaces Every attempt to delete a port under those circumstances should result in "denied" message with text "_port in use_" or similar. If possible message should show objects that are blocking deletion, similar to another FR that has been accepted. ### Use case In my opinion this is fundamental feature of a system like Netbox where you need to keep your data in order. There should be a natural hierarchy of elements that are depending on each other. Just like you cannot remove site if there are devices assigned to it. This would keep objects safe from accidental removal and possible nightmare with orphan objects. ### Database changes not sure ### External dependencies none
adam added the type: feature label 2025-12-29 20:42:33 +01:00
adam closed this issue 2025-12-29 20:42:33 +01:00
adam commented 2025-12-29 20:42:34 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@github-actions[bot] commented on GitHub (Feb 27, 2024):

This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed if no further activity occurs. NetBox is governed by a small group of core maintainers which means not all opened issues may receive direct feedback. Do not attempt to circumvent this process by "bumping" the issue; doing so will result in its immediate closure and you may be barred from participating in any future discussions. Please see our contributing guide.

@github-actions[bot] commented on GitHub (Feb 27, 2024): This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed if no further activity occurs. NetBox is governed by a small group of core maintainers which means not all opened issues may receive direct feedback. **Do not** attempt to circumvent this process by "bumping" the issue; doing so will result in its immediate closure and you may be barred from participating in any future discussions. Please see our [contributing guide](https://github.com/netbox-community/netbox/blob/develop/CONTRIBUTING.md).
adam commented 2025-12-29 20:42:34 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Mar 27, 2024):

While I can appreciate the use case, there are valid competing use cases that depend on the current behavior. NetBox v3.7 extended the deletion confirmation dialog so that it now lists any dependent objects that will also be deleted as a consequence of deleting the primary object (see #13690). This provides a nice compromise to help safeguard against inadvertent deletions without inhibiting workflows which depend on cascading object deletions.

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Mar 27, 2024): While I can appreciate the use case, there are valid competing use cases that depend on the current behavior. NetBox v3.7 extended the deletion confirmation dialog so that it now lists any dependent objects that will also be deleted as a consequence of deleting the primary object (see #13690). This provides a nice compromise to help safeguard against inadvertent deletions without inhibiting workflows which depend on cascading object deletions.
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 type: feature
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#8890
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?