Nullable fields not nullable in the OpenAPI spec

[fbs]

Deployment Type

Self-hosted

NetBox Version

v3.7.4

Python Version

3.11

Steps to Reproduce

Compare the API spec on dcim/devices to the actual API response

Expected Behavior

An unknown number of fields should be marked nullable in the openapi spec

This include at least:

• primary_ip on VirtualMachineWithConfigContext
• primary_ip on DeviceWithConfigContext

I think there are more as I expect this an issue with how the spec is generated from properties

Observed Behavior

$ curl -s -X 'GET' 'http://localhost:9876/api/dcim/devices/?name=NAME' -H 'accept: application/json' -H 'Authorization: token KEY' | jq '.results[0]|[.role, .primary_ip, .primary_ip4 ]'
[
  {
    "id": 15,
    "url": "http://localhost:9876/api/dcim/device-roles/15/",
    "display": "Server",
    "name": "Server",
    "slug": "server"
  },
  null, # <- primary_ip
  null  # <- primary_ip4
]

compared to the spec:

$ curl -s http://localhost:9876/api/schema/ | yq '.components.schemas.VirtualMachineWithConfigContext.properties.primary_ip'
allOf:
  - $ref: '#/components/schemas/NestedIPAddress'
readOnly: true

Note how primary_ipv4 is marked nullable, as expected

$ curl -s http://localhost:9876/api/schema/ | yq '.components.schemas.VirtualMachineWithConfigContext.properties.primary_ip4'
allOf:
  - $ref: '#/components/schemas/NestedIPAddress'
nullable: true

The above is just one instance, it happens to other schemas as well. E.g. DeviceWithConfigContext has the same problem

[fbs]

My guess would be that this comes from the primary_ip being a property, making it read only but not nullable. But I'm not sure whether thats in the right direction.

I'd be open to fixing this but will need some pointers

[jeremystretch]

These fields should be nullable

Please spend some more time on your report. Without an explicit list of fields which you believe to be erroneously defined, this is not actionable.

[fbs]

These fields should be nullable

Please spend some more time on your report. Without an explicit list of fields which you believe to be erroneously defined, this is not actionable.

Sorry, I've updated the issue description to list the fields I identified.

I think we can identify all fields impacted when we understand what is causing the spec for these to be wrong