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

Reserve front or rear of rack units #9534

New Issue
Open
opened 2025-12-29 20:51:07 +01:00 by adam · 4 comments
adam commented 2025-12-29 20:51:07 +01:00
Owner
Copy Link

Originally created by @krancslawomir on GitHub (Apr 24, 2024).

NetBox version

v3.7.6

Feature type

New functionality

Proposed functionality

When reserving spaces within a rack for devices, the current system does not differentiate between the front and rear sections of the rack. Additionally, not every device occupies the full depth of the rack.

Update the reservation system to include options for rack face (front or rear) or option "is full depth". This will enable users to specify whether they are reserving the front or the back of the rack, and whether they are reserving a space that spans the full depth of the rack or not.

Feature Request connected with: #9090 and #9975 and #10245

Use case

"If I were to have a cable manager on the front of a rack this device is not full depth. This would leave plenty of room in the rear of the rack to mount something else. Another cable manager perhaps, or a patch panel. This feature would allow someone to have a non full-depth device occupying rack unit 40 in the front, while reserving rack unit 40 in the rear for another non full-depth device."

"Devices such as DC fuse/breaker panels will often have rigid cables hang below the unit requiring that nothing be installed below it. These cables have essentially no depth and won't affect installing gear behind it in a cabinet."

Database changes

No response

External dependencies

No response

Originally created by @krancslawomir on GitHub (Apr 24, 2024). ### NetBox version v3.7.6 ### Feature type New functionality ### Proposed functionality When reserving spaces within a rack for devices, the current system does not differentiate between the front and rear sections of the rack. Additionally, not every device occupies the full depth of the rack. Update the reservation system to include options for rack face (front or rear) or option "is full depth". This will enable users to specify whether they are reserving the front or the back of the rack, and whether they are reserving a space that spans the full depth of the rack or not. Feature Request connected with: [#9090](https://github.com/netbox-community/netbox/issues/9090) and [#9975](https://github.com/netbox-community/netbox/issues/9975) and [#10245](https://github.com/netbox-community/netbox/issues/10245) ### Use case "If I were to have a cable manager on the front of a rack this device is not full depth. This would leave plenty of room in the rear of the rack to mount something else. Another cable manager perhaps, or a patch panel. This feature would allow someone to have a non full-depth device occupying rack unit 40 in the front, while reserving rack unit 40 in the rear for another non full-depth device." "Devices such as DC fuse/breaker panels will often have rigid cables hang below the unit requiring that nothing be installed below it. These cables have essentially no depth and won't affect installing gear behind it in a cabinet." ### Database changes _No response_ ### External dependencies _No response_
adam added the type: featurenetboxstatus: backlogcomplexity: high labels 2025-12-29 20:51:07 +01:00
adam commented 2025-12-29 20:51:07 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jeffgdotorg commented on GitHub (Apr 24, 2024):

Thanks for your interest in improving NetBox!

I've moved this issue to needs owner status. If you're interested in working it through to a PR, please leave a comment to that effect and a maintainer will assign it to you for implementation. Otherwise, another developer with the necessary skills and capacity can pick it up.

@jeffgdotorg commented on GitHub (Apr 24, 2024): Thanks for your interest in improving NetBox! I've moved this issue to `needs owner` status. If you're interested in working it through to a PR, please leave a comment to that effect and a maintainer will assign it to you for implementation. Otherwise, another developer with the necessary skills and capacity can pick it up.
adam commented 2025-12-29 20:51:07 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Apr 25, 2024):

@krancslawomir please expand your description above to describe the proposed implementation, and specifically the proposed changes to the current model for rack reservations.

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Apr 25, 2024): @krancslawomir please expand your description above to describe the proposed implementation, and specifically the proposed changes to the current model for rack reservations.
adam commented 2025-12-29 20:51:08 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@krancslawomir commented on GitHub (Apr 26, 2024):

Hello,
Currently when reservating spaces within a rack, the current system does not differentiate between the front or rear sections.
Nevertheless, when creating device type there is a option "Is full depth (Device consumes both front and rear rack faces.)"
This is great option because not every device occupies the full depth of the rack.

The same sitiation is with rack reservation. It would be great if you could implement the same funcionality.

This is current version:
current reservation

This is my proposal:
Proposal

@krancslawomir commented on GitHub (Apr 26, 2024): Hello, Currently when reservating spaces within a rack, the current system does not differentiate between the front or rear sections. Nevertheless, when creating device type there is a option "Is full depth (Device consumes both front and rear rack faces.)" This is great option because not every device occupies the full depth of the rack. The same sitiation is with rack reservation. It would be great if you could implement the same funcionality. **This is current version:** ![current reservation](https://github.com/netbox-community/netbox/assets/56762524/a6158a75-4d30-4d9c-9f88-6edbb47a7bff) **This is my proposal:** ![Proposal](https://github.com/netbox-community/netbox/assets/56762524/9d53198b-cb66-42e4-8f4c-597098194fe2)
adam commented 2025-12-29 20:51:08 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@marcusyuri commented on GitHub (Mar 27, 2025):

Hello!

We also have this issue in our netbox deployment, so it will be a nice feature for us.

Also I would like to suggest that the reservation model was extended with a new field, named (suggestion) = Prevent device mounting.

When this field was true, netbox will refuse to install a device on a reservated position, so the user must explicity remove the reservation before a device can be assign to the reserved rack U position.

Thanks

@marcusyuri commented on GitHub (Mar 27, 2025): Hello! We also have this issue in our netbox deployment, so it will be a nice feature for us. Also I would like to suggest that the reservation model was extended with a new field, named (suggestion) = Prevent device mounting. When this field was true, netbox will refuse to install a device on a reservated position, so the user must explicity remove the reservation before a device can be assign to the reserved rack U position. Thanks
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 complexity: high netbox status: backlog 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#9534
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?