Problem with filters if filter value is Null

See original GitHub issue

Netbox - v3.1.6 pynetbox - 6.5.0 Repeatability I think on all versions. Let’s look at the request: https://demo.netbox.dev/api/dcim/racks/?site_id=21&location_id=null We’ll get racks with no location. If we try to do the same through the pynetbox library: pynb.dcim.racks.filter(site_id=21, location_id=None) Then we get all the racks on this site. The request will look like: https://demo.netbox.dev/api/dcim/racks/?site_id=21 This applies to both the get request and all objects.

Issue Analytics

State:
Created 2 years ago
Comments:7 (7 by maintainers)

Top GitHub Comments

1reaction

markkuleiniocommented, Feb 3, 2022

I don’t get why the error says about vrf while your .get() is using vrf_id.

What does your vrf variable contain?

Anyway, this is how it looks like here (pynetbox ~6.5.0, NetBox 3.2.0-dev):

>>> netbox.ipam.prefixes.get(prefix="10.1.1.0/24").vrf is None
True

>>> netbox.ipam.prefixes.get(prefix="10.2.2.0/24").vrf
TestVRF

>>> netbox.ipam.prefixes.get(prefix="10.1.1.0/24", vrf_id="null")
10.1.1.0/24

>>> netbox.ipam.prefixes.get(prefix="10.2.2.0/24", vrf_id="null")
(not found, correct)

0reactions

zachmoodycommented, Feb 6, 2022

@zachmoody what do you think, could we change Request._make_call() to check for any None values and just replace them with "null"? Extra mention in release notes is probably needed.

I don’t know, I agree it is cleaner, but I also worry it could result in some astonishing behavior for clients. E.g. someone initializing a variable that winds up getting passed to get or filter as None now has very confusing result. I think the current behavior with null is worth calling out in the docs though.