Two more options added to the netbox Pillar, and use salt.utils.http

[mirceaulinic]

What does this PR do?

I am applying some small (or I think so) changes to the netbox external Pillar:

• Use salt.utils.http instead of requests to avoid external dependency.
• Add two new options: site_details and site_prefixes.
• versionadded tag.

@ksofa2 @ngrundler I hope you don't mind my changes, please let me know if there's anything you disagree / should be changed etc. Additionally, it would be great if you could test this out and confirm it doesn't change anything in your environment. Thanks!

[ngrundler]

@mirceaulinic

No issues on my end, this looks great. A good learning example for me about how I can use features built into salt to remove dependencies and make things simpler!

What do you think about nesting the different NetBox API endpoints into the netbox pillar key, e.g.

"netbox": {
    "device": { <device details> },
    "site": { <site details> },
    "interfaces": { <interface details> },
    "ip-addresses": { <ip address details> }
 }

I've since made some tweaks internally since we're trying to use netbox data to drive configuration templates and I needed this data available, so I have set up queries to interfaces, addresses, connections, etc. I was planning on adding this to the module myself soon(ish), but I see no reason for that to impact this PR.

[mirceaulinic]

What do you think about nesting the different NetBox API endpoints into the netbox pillar key, e.g.

That would make sense to me, yes.

[Ichabond]

What do you think about nesting the different NetBox API endpoints into the netbox pillar key, e.g.

I think that's a great idea, but I'd nest them in the App endpoint as well. So instead of the flatter structure you proposed, I propose:

"netbox": {
    "dcim": {
        "device": { <device details> },
        "site": { <site details> },
        "interfaces": { <interface details> }        
    },
    "ipam": {
        "ip-addresses": { <ip address details> }
    }
 }

This will make sure there's no conflicts if/when Netbox has 2 apps with identical API endpoints.

[mirceaulinic]

I think these proposals make sense to me, I would leave it though for another day to discuss this further. Wondering if @zachmoody has any thoughts on this?

[zachmoody]

TIL that salt.utils.http doesn't use requests, by default anyways. That's impressive. 😄

I'd definitely nest under app though, ran into the same conundrum with earlier versions of pynetbox and in the end had to acquiesce to a two-tiered hierarchy.

[rallytime]

Nice