Environment
Proposed Functionality
Allow instances of DiffSyncModels to be preset in multiple branches.
This would allow a model to have an optional parent while still syncing all the objects without parents
Use Case
In the Netbox model we can have a VirtualChassis that includes member Device's, but also have Device's that are not part of a VirtualChassis.
If i split up these entities in two DiffSyncModel's and make Device a child of the VirtualChassis i must choose whether i only want to sync the Device's that are part of a VirtualChassis:
- by making the
VirtualChassis a top_level entry. This however will ignore all the devices that are not a child of VirtualChassis. Or:
- by making the
Device a top_level entry. This however will not create the VirtualChassis.
If i add both VirtualChassis and Device to top_level i get an error that Device's that are a child of VirtualChassis are already created when it wants to add the Device from that top_level entry.
This is exactly the same object so i dont know why it couldnt be possible to just skip over trying to recreate this. This would also be a nicer option than what is suggested in #285 .
Environment
Proposed Functionality
Allow instances of DiffSyncModels to be preset in multiple branches.
This would allow a model to have an optional parent while still syncing all the objects without parents
Use Case
In the Netbox model we can have a
VirtualChassisthat includes memberDevice's, but also haveDevice's that are not part of aVirtualChassis.If i split up these entities in two
DiffSyncModel's and makeDevicea child of theVirtualChassisi must choose whether i only want to sync theDevice's that are part of aVirtualChassis:VirtualChassisa top_level entry. This however will ignore all the devices that are not a child ofVirtualChassis. Or:Devicea top_level entry. This however will not create theVirtualChassis.If i add both
VirtualChassisandDeviceto top_level i get an error thatDevice's that are a child ofVirtualChassisare already created when it wants to add theDevicefrom that top_level entry.This is exactly the same object so i dont know why it couldnt be possible to just skip over trying to recreate this. This would also be a nicer option than what is suggested in #285 .