starred/netbox
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/netbox-community/netbox.git synced 2026-01-13 13:53:31 +01:00
Code Issues 273 Packages Projects Releases 10 Wiki Activity

Tenant grp and Tenant are reset when choosing "Create & Add Another" #9772

New Issue
Closed
opened 2025-12-29 21:22:26 +01:00 by adam · 2 comments
adam commented 2025-12-29 21:22:26 +01:00
Owner
Copy Link

Originally created by @nerfux on GitHub (May 30, 2024).

Originally assigned to: @arthanson on GitHub.

Deployment Type

Self-hosted

NetBox Version

v4.0.3

Python Version

3.12

Steps to Reproduce

  1. Create a cable, and assign it to a tenant group and tenant
  2. Click "Create & Add Another"
  3. all fields are pre-defined from last section, but tenant/tentant groups are empty

Expected Behavior

Tenant / Tenant group fields are pre-defined from last creation of the cable

Observed Behavior

none

Originally created by @nerfux on GitHub (May 30, 2024). Originally assigned to: @arthanson on GitHub. ### Deployment Type Self-hosted ### NetBox Version v4.0.3 ### Python Version 3.12 ### Steps to Reproduce 1. Create a cable, and assign it to a tenant group and tenant 2. Click "Create & Add Another" 3. all fields are pre-defined from last section, but tenant/tentant groups are empty ### Expected Behavior Tenant / Tenant group fields are pre-defined from last creation of the cable ### Observed Behavior none
adam added the type: bugstatus: acceptedseverity: low labels 2025-12-29 21:22:26 +01:00
adam closed this issue 2025-12-29 21:22:26 +01:00
adam commented 2025-12-29 21:22:26 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jeffgdotorg commented on GitHub (May 31, 2024):

Thanks for reporting a problem you're having with NetBox.

In attempting to reproduce this problem on a fresh, empty 4.0.3 installation, I'm in fact seeing none of the field values carried over from the previous creation of the first cable. This leads me to think the behavior is expected. Labeling under review while the other maintainers weigh in.

@jeffgdotorg commented on GitHub (May 31, 2024): Thanks for reporting a problem you're having with NetBox. In attempting to reproduce this problem on a fresh, empty 4.0.3 installation, I'm in fact seeing none of the field values carried over from the previous creation of the first cable. This leads me to think the behavior is expected. Labeling under review while the other maintainers weigh in.
adam commented 2025-12-29 21:22:27 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@nerfux commented on GitHub (Jun 1, 2024):

But the devices from the orginal cable created are filled out?

On Fri, 31 May 2024 at 23:16, Jeff Gehlbach @.***>
wrote:

Thanks for reporting a problem you're having with NetBox.

In attempting to reproduce this problem on a fresh, empty 4.0.3
installation, I'm in fact seeing none of the field values carried over from
the previous creation of the first cable. This leads me to think the
behavior is expected. Labeling under review while the other maintainers
weigh in.

—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
https://github.com/netbox-community/netbox/issues/16357#issuecomment-2142987727,
or unsubscribe
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABJXREBS7SYL4Q5IZYXDYLDZFDSC3AVCNFSM6AAAAABIQ2UHDOVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDCNBSHE4DONZSG4
.
You are receiving this because you authored the thread.Message ID:
@.***>

@nerfux commented on GitHub (Jun 1, 2024): But the devices from the orginal cable created are filled out? On Fri, 31 May 2024 at 23:16, Jeff Gehlbach ***@***.***> wrote: > Thanks for reporting a problem you're having with NetBox. > > In attempting to reproduce this problem on a fresh, empty 4.0.3 > installation, I'm in fact seeing none of the field values carried over from > the previous creation of the first cable. This leads me to think the > behavior is expected. Labeling under review while the other maintainers > weigh in. > > — > Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub > <https://github.com/netbox-community/netbox/issues/16357#issuecomment-2142987727>, > or unsubscribe > <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABJXREBS7SYL4Q5IZYXDYLDZFDSC3AVCNFSM6AAAAABIQ2UHDOVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDCNBSHE4DONZSG4> > . > You are receiving this because you authored the thread.Message ID: > ***@***.***> >
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 severity: low status: accepted type: bug
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#9772
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?