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

Create better protection against the deletion of devices. #9175

New Issue
Closed
opened 2025-12-29 20:46:35 +01:00 by adam · 2 comments
adam commented 2025-12-29 20:46:35 +01:00
Owner
Copy Link

Originally created by @LHBL2003 on GitHub (Jan 31, 2024).

NetBox version

v3.6.6

Feature type

Data model extension

Proposed functionality

Create better protection against the deletion of devices.

Possible idea

One possible idea would be as with Windows domain controllers and their OUs.
See example here: https://www.wintips.org/fix-object-is-protected-from-accidental-deletion-you-do-not-have-sufficient-privileges-to-delete-ou/

Improvement related to Netbox:
A Device is created and a field "Protect Device from accidental deletion" is set to TRUE. If an operator deletes a Device, he receives the message that this Device is protected against deletion. The operator must set the protection to FALSE in the properties before he can delete the device.

Reason:

When I set up Netbox, the same thing happened to me as happened to a colleague today. Only I had deleted 2 devices and he had deleted 26 devices. He too had already sorted many devices into racks. But he too has only now fallen into the trap.

How did this happen / how can something like this happen?

A rack with devices already documented in Netbox is to be reorganized for planning.

  • He has taken a screenshot of the rack and wanted to remove all Devices from the rack.
  • He clicks on a device in the rack and clicks on Delete.
  • He repeated this until all devices had been removed from the rack.
    Only when he added them did he realize that he had not deleted the devices from the rack, but the device itself.

Result:
We had to restore a backup from the previous day. Fortunately, I only made one small change that I was able to document. Otherwise the change would have been lost one day. Or the colleague would have had to recreate and document many devices.

Use case

Devices are not accidentally deleted, which involves a lot of work. After all, this is the core of everything.

Database changes

No response

External dependencies

No response

Originally created by @LHBL2003 on GitHub (Jan 31, 2024). ### NetBox version v3.6.6 ### Feature type Data model extension ### Proposed functionality Create better protection against the deletion of devices. --------------------------------------------------- **Possible idea** One possible idea would be as with Windows domain controllers and their OUs. See example here: https://www.wintips.org/fix-object-is-protected-from-accidental-deletion-you-do-not-have-sufficient-privileges-to-delete-ou/ Improvement related to Netbox: A Device is created and a field "Protect Device from accidental deletion" is set to TRUE. If an operator deletes a Device, he receives the message that this Device is protected against deletion. The operator must set the protection to FALSE in the properties before he can delete the device. --------------------------------------------------- **Reason:** When I set up Netbox, the same thing happened to me as happened to a colleague today. Only I had deleted 2 devices and he had deleted 26 devices. He too had already sorted many devices into racks. But he too has only now fallen into the trap. How did this happen / how can something like this happen? A rack with devices already documented in Netbox is to be reorganized for planning. - He has taken a screenshot of the rack and wanted to remove all Devices from the rack. - He clicks on a device in the rack and clicks on Delete. - He repeated this until all devices had been removed from the rack. Only when he added them did he realize that he had not deleted the devices from the rack, but the device itself. Result: We had to restore a backup from the previous day. Fortunately, I only made one small change that I was able to document. Otherwise the change would have been lost one day. Or the colleague would have had to recreate and document many devices. ### Use case Devices are not accidentally deleted, which involves a lot of work. After all, this is the core of everything. ### Database changes _No response_ ### External dependencies _No response_
adam added the type: feature label 2025-12-29 20:46:35 +01:00
adam closed this issue 2025-12-29 20:46:35 +01:00
adam commented 2025-12-29 20:46:36 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@DanSheps commented on GitHub (Jan 31, 2024):

IMO, there is a way to do this without requiring too much deep diving. Object based permissions, simply change your delete permission to require a specific option first (for example, "device__status": "offline") or remove permissions from colleagues all together.

@DanSheps commented on GitHub (Jan 31, 2024): IMO, there is a way to do this without requiring too much deep diving. Object based permissions, simply change your delete permission to require a specific option first (for example, `"device__status": "offline"`) or remove permissions from colleagues all together.
adam commented 2025-12-29 20:46:37 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Mar 8, 2024):

While I can appreciate the use case, it's unlikely we'd be able to identify a built-in solution that works for everyone without inhibiting certain workflows. However, this is a great use case for custom object protection rules, which can be used to safeguard against the deletion of objects that don't meet the prescribed criteria.

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Mar 8, 2024): While I can appreciate the use case, it's unlikely we'd be able to identify a built-in solution that works for everyone without inhibiting certain workflows. However, this is a great use case for custom [object protection rules](https://docs.netbox.dev/en/stable/configuration/data-validation/#protection_rules), which can be used to safeguard against the deletion of objects that don't meet the prescribed criteria.
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#9175
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?