starred/netbox
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/netbox-community/netbox.git synced 2026-01-13 22:03:32 +01:00
Code Issues 273 Packages Projects Releases 10 Wiki Activity

OOB IP: Add checkbox to ip-addresses to easily assign IP to an interface in one step #9118

New Issue
Closed
opened 2025-12-29 20:45:51 +01:00 by adam · 6 comments
adam commented 2025-12-29 20:45:51 +01:00
Owner
Copy Link

Originally created by @bitcollector1 on GitHub (Jan 20, 2024).

NetBox version

v3.7.1

Feature type

Change to existing functionality

Proposed functionality

Add a checkbox to the ip-addresses page for OOB IP; just like the Primary IP address.

OOB_IP

Use case

currently it's not a one step process to assign an IP address and associate it to OOB IP.

I'm requesting that this option be added so the functionality is the same as the primary IP address.

Database changes

No response

External dependencies

No response

Originally created by @bitcollector1 on GitHub (Jan 20, 2024). ### NetBox version v3.7.1 ### Feature type Change to existing functionality ### Proposed functionality Add a checkbox to the ip-addresses page for OOB IP; just like the Primary IP address. <img width="765" alt="OOB_IP" src="https://github.com/netbox-community/netbox/assets/50723251/ddfca11b-7c1c-4ca6-946a-9cf845c47306"> ### Use case currently it's not a one step process to assign an IP address and associate it to OOB IP. I'm requesting that this option be added so the functionality is the same as the primary IP address. ### Database changes _No response_ ### External dependencies _No response_
adam added the type: feature label 2025-12-29 20:45:51 +01:00
adam closed this issue 2025-12-29 20:45:51 +01:00
adam commented 2025-12-29 20:45:52 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@bitcollector1 commented on GitHub (Jan 23, 2024):

this change has to be super easy and is probably one that I should do myself, to give back to the project.....but I'm assuming it will take 2 min for one of the core developers to do. Sometimes, these low effort tickets are appreciated by devs ;)

@bitcollector1 commented on GitHub (Jan 23, 2024): this change has to be super easy and is probably one that I should do myself, to give back to the project.....but I'm assuming it will take 2 min for one of the core developers to do. Sometimes, these low effort tickets are appreciated by devs ;)
adam commented 2025-12-29 20:45:52 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@DanSheps commented on GitHub (Jan 23, 2024):

Honestly

I am kind of against this. It is going to be too confusing for a user I think when we present it in the UI. It is also going to add excess clutter where it doesn't need to be.

@DanSheps commented on GitHub (Jan 23, 2024): Honestly I am kind of against this. It is going to be too confusing for a user I think when we present it in the UI. It is also going to add excess clutter where it doesn't need to be.
adam commented 2025-12-29 20:45:52 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Jan 23, 2024):

It also would be poor UX to provide a checkbox for both the primary and OOB IP roles, and then scold the user with an error message if they check both.

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Jan 23, 2024): It also would be poor UX to provide a checkbox for both the primary and OOB IP roles, and then scold the user with an error message if they check both.
adam commented 2025-12-29 20:45:52 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@bitcollector1 commented on GitHub (Jan 23, 2024):

Well since you brought it up, there is no reason to admonish the user as apparently you can set the same IP for both roles ;)

Screenshot 2024-01-23 at 09 54 55

I had no idea a simple checkbox would cause so much pushback; consider the request withdrawn.

@bitcollector1 commented on GitHub (Jan 23, 2024): Well since you brought it up, there is no reason to admonish the user as apparently you can set the same IP for both roles ;) <img width="341" alt="Screenshot 2024-01-23 at 09 54 55" src="https://github.com/netbox-community/netbox/assets/50723251/2bf44db2-0bf7-40e6-becd-703862ca2c9b"> I had no idea a simple checkbox would cause so much pushback; consider the request withdrawn.
adam commented 2025-12-29 20:45:53 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@DanSheps commented on GitHub (Jan 23, 2024):

I had no idea a simple checkbox would cause so much pushback; consider the request withdrawn.

I will have to check the logic and the PR, I honestly though (but tested it and discovered it wasn't which is why I didn't say anything) that they were mutually exclusive.

I had no idea a simple checkbox would cause so much pushback; consider the request withdrawn.

I think that primary_ip makes sense to be assignable right off the get-go, but I think for oob_ip it makes more sense in that it is optional and assignable only by editing the device.

Don't let this discourage you from opening FR's, it is just with this one we have a complex UI for this specific form already and it makes sense to not place the oob_ip here.

oob_ip and primary_ip are both actually attributes of the Device model not the IPAddress model

@DanSheps commented on GitHub (Jan 23, 2024): > I had no idea a simple checkbox would cause so much pushback; consider the request withdrawn. I will have to check the logic and the PR, I honestly though (but tested it and discovered it wasn't which is why I didn't say anything) that they were mutually exclusive. > I had no idea a simple checkbox would cause so much pushback; consider the request withdrawn. I think that `primary_ip` makes sense to be assignable right off the get-go, but I think for oob_ip it makes more sense in that it is optional and assignable only by editing the device. Don't let this discourage you from opening FR's, it is just with this one we have a complex UI for this specific form already and it makes sense to not place the oob_ip here. oob_ip and primary_ip are both actually attributes of the Device model not the IPAddress model
adam commented 2025-12-29 20:45:53 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@ITJamie commented on GitHub (Jan 23, 2024):

Instead of a checkbox it could be converted to a dropdown allowing a selection of roles/functions? None being the default

@ITJamie commented on GitHub (Jan 23, 2024): Instead of a checkbox it could be converted to a dropdown allowing a selection of roles/functions? None being the default
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#9118
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?