AutoSyncRecord inconsistent after file change

[alehaa]

Deployment Type

Self-hosted

NetBox Version

v3.7.1

Python Version

3.11

Steps to Reproduce

1. Create data source TestData:

   Field	Value
   Name	TestData
   Type	git
   URL	https://github.com/netbox-community/netbox-plugin-tutorial.git
   enabled	yes

2. Sync data source TestData.

3. Create export template TestExport:

   Field	Value
   Name	TestExport
   Content Types	Circuits > Circuit (but any will do)
   Data Source	TestData
   Data File	README.md
   Auto Sync Enabled	yes

4. Edit export template TestExport.

5. Select Data file tutorial/step01-initial-setup.md and save. (will fail).

6. Go back to edit form for export template TestExport.

7. Set Data source, Data file and Auto Sync enabled to null and save.

Expected Behavior

Step 5: Edit succeeds.
Step 7: AutoSyncRecord is removed from database.

Observed Behavior

Step 5: An IntegrityError error is raised, as SyncedDataMixin's save() method won't change existing AutoSyncRecord objects.

Step 7: Edit succeeds, but the related AutoSyncRecord stays in the database. This is due SyncedDataMixin's save() method will remove related AutoSyncRecord objects, but the QuerySet filter uses fields of the object previously set to None in the edit form.

[jeremystretch]

Please revise your post above to include explicit instructions. It's not clear exactly which actions are needed to reproduce the bug. Providing a concrete example would be very helpful.

[alehaa]

@jeremystretch I've updated the instructions to reproduce the issue.

[alehaa]

I believe this could be solved easily by altering the delete mechanism in SyncDataMixin to delete all records that should not be present in the database at the end of save() and delete(). I could check this locally and provide a PR if wanted …

[jeremystretch]

I believe this could be solved easily by altering the delete mechanism in SyncDataMixin to delete all records that should not be present in the database at the end of save() and delete(). I could check this locally and provide a PR if wanted …

Thanks @alehaa. I think you're on the right track here. We can probably just change get_or_create() to update_or_create() to handle both conditions. I'll submit the change for review in a minute.