'group' required on create API call in tenant

[rodvand]

Deployment Type

Self-hosted

NetBox Version

v4.0.0

Python Version

3.10

Steps to Reproduce

1. Try to create a tenant with only a name and a slug (which works through the GUI)

curl -s -X POST \
-H "Authorization: Token 0123456789abcdef0123456789abcdef01234567" \
-H "Content-Type: application/json" \
http://localhost:32768/api/tenancy/tenants/ \
--data '{"name": "Tenant 2", "slug": "tenant-2"}' | jq '.'

Expected Behavior

Tenant to be created

Observed Behavior

{
  "group": [
    "This field is required."
  ]
}

[jeremystretch]

I'm not able to reproduce this on v4.0.0:

$ curl -X POST \
-H "Authorization: Token $TOKEN" \
-H "Content-Type: application/json" \
-H "Accept: application/json; indent=4" \
http://netbox:8000/api/tenancy/tenants/ \
--data '{"name": "My Tenant 1", "slug": "my-tenant-1"}'
{
    "id": 14,
    "url": "http://netbox:8000/api/tenancy/tenants/14/",
    "display": "My Tenant 1",
    "name": "My Tenant 1",
    "slug": "my-tenant-1",
    "group": null,
    "description": "",
    "comments": "",
    "tags": [],
    "custom_fields": {
        "cust_id": null
    },
    "created": "2024-05-07T13:14:00.997561Z",
    "last_updated": "2024-05-07T13:14:00.997578Z"
}

I can't think of anything that would cause this. Do you have any custom validation rules enabled for tenants by chance?

[rodvand]

This is a fresh install (netbox-docker) and I'm just trying to populate it with some data (so no validation rules). I get the same error by using the Swagger interface, as well as trying against demo.netbox.dev:

curl -X POST \
-H "Authorization: Token TOKEN" \
-H "Content-Type: application/json" \
-H "Accept: application/json; indent=4" \
https://demo.netbox.dev/api/tenancy/tenants/ \
--data '{"name": "My Tenant 1", "slug": "my-tenant-1"}'
{
    "group": [
        "This field is required."
    ]
}

[rodvand]

Could it maybe be fixed with something like this bfc1cab ?

[jeremystretch]

Ok, turns out I was mistakenly running and older version of DRF (from working on another bug) when I attempted to reproduce it. Sorry for the confusion.

Can confirm this is a bug. Funny that it works fine under DRF 3.14.

[jeremystretch]

Could it maybe be fixed with something like this bfc1cab ?

Adding default=None does seem to fix the issue, but we need to identify the root cause. There are plenty of similar foreign key fields defined that work as expected without explicitly declaring a null default value. I suspect it might be related to the uniqueness constraint on the Tenant model; we've run into similar problems in the past.