Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Add an "owner" field to all primary objects #988

Closed
jeremystretch opened this issue Mar 23, 2017 · 5 comments
Closed

Add an "owner" field to all primary objects #988

jeremystretch opened this issue Mar 23, 2017 · 5 comments
Labels
type: feature Introduction of new functionality to the application

Comments

@jeremystretch
Copy link
Member

Issue type: Feature request

Originally proposed by @CassioFabius in #979. This would entail adding a new optional ForeignKey field pointing to the User model. Each primary object type (listed below) could be assigned an owning user. Proposed objects include:

  • Circuits
    • Provider
    • Circuit
  • DCIM
    • Site
    • Rack
    • DeviceType
    • Device
  • IPAM
    • VRF
    • Aggregate
    • Prefix
    • IPAddress
    • VLAN
    • Service
  • Secrets
    • Secret
  • Tenancy
    • Tenant
@arbor-bdoyle
Copy link

What permissions do you predict being needed to change the Owner field? Our current system has a Reserved For field to track who is using a given test device in the lab, and it changes fairly frequently. We don't have any permissions around changing the field, as it mostly serves to ensure that people don't accidentally clobber boxes that other people are using with automated scripts, or to track down who is currently using a box if you're curious. It would be neat if we could keep this process but also adopt Owner.

@specialcircumstances
Copy link

specialcircumstances commented May 6, 2017

Would you propose that the object is inherited if not set... Similar to how tenant is inherited for prefixes?

@candlerb
Copy link
Contributor

This records a single 'owner' against an item. I think it would be useful if:

  • one item can have multiple Users as owners; and/or
  • the owner can be a Group (or Groups)

@jeremystretch jeremystretch added the status: accepted This issue has been accepted for implementation label Jan 26, 2018
@MalfuncEddie
Copy link

Hi,

I suspect this feature originated from itil practices. If so I would replace "owner" with "accountable" and add responsible.

In itil these are not the same.
http://www.itsmprofessor.net/2011/01/accountable-or-responsible.html

PS: I also needed this and solved this by using custom fields (accountable & responsible).

@jeremystretch jeremystretch added type: feature Introduction of new functionality to the application needs milestone Awaiting prioritization for inclusion with a future NetBox release and removed type: minor feature status: accepted This issue has been accepted for implementation labels Jul 24, 2020
@jeremystretch
Copy link
Member Author

With the addition of object-based permissions in v2.9, this doesn't seem particularly useful anymore: the new permissions offer a much more flexible approach to designating "ownership" of objects. I'm going to close this issue, but if anyone still has a need for it, please open a new FR citing your specific use case.

@jeremystretch jeremystretch removed the needs milestone Awaiting prioritization for inclusion with a future NetBox release label Nov 12, 2020
@github-actions github-actions bot locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators Feb 11, 2021
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
type: feature Introduction of new functionality to the application
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

5 participants