[Feature Request] Allow assets to be assigned to another asset as a default location

[niedfa]

Description
Currently, in Snipe-IT, an asset can’t be assigned to another asset as its default location. This feature would be highly beneficial in scenarios where assets are physically stored within other assets, such as specific devices installed in a movable server rack or tools placed in a toolbox. By enabling assets to be assigned to other assets as their default location, users can create a more intuitive and structured asset hierarchy directly within the system.
One key limitation of relying solely on the “Checkout” function is that when the “Checkin” function is used, the asset is checked back into the default location or an other location rather than being reassigned to its previous parent asset. This behavior undermines the ability to maintain accurate relationships between assets. With this feature, users would have the flexibility to check out either the container asset as a whole or the individual assets within it.
Proposed Solution
Key features of this enhancement could include:
• Modify the "Default Location" field on the asset creation/editing page to enable users to choose between assigning the asset to a location or to an other asset as its default location.
• Implement functionality similar to the "Checkout" feature, where users can select between assigning to a user, a location, or another asset.
Conclusion
This feature would enhance Snipe-IT’s flexibility by allowing assets to recognize other assets as their default location. This functionality would better reflect real-world asset management scenarios and provide a more user-friendly experience. Thank you for considering this request! Please let me know if additional information or clarification is needed.

[welcome[bot]]

👋 Thanks for opening your first issue here! If you're reporting a 🐞 bug, please make sure you include steps to reproduce it. We get a lot of issues on this repo, so please be patient and we will get back to you as soon as we can.

[snipe]

That's not really how locations are meant to be used - they represent a physical, stationary place. I don't see this one on the short-term roadmap, if I'm honest.

[niedfa]

Thank you for the answer, even if it is not what I had hoped for. I understand that you want to keep the handling of the locations simple.

This means I have to proceed with one of the two workarounds:

1. Create a "toolbox" asset and some "tool" assets. Assign the "toolbox" asset to the physical default location. Assign all "tool" assets to a fake default location. To assign the "tool" assets to the "toolbox" asset, they need to be checked out to the "toolbox" asset. If I want to lend the whole "toolbox" asset, I can check out the "toolbox" asset to the person. That's easy. But if I want to lend just one "tool" asset, I need to check it in to the fake default location and then check it out to the person. When I got it back, I need to check it in to the fake default location, search in the history the correct "toolbox" asset and check it out to the "toolbox" asset. It is risky that someone forgets to check it out to the "toolbox" asset again and creates a mess.

2. Create a "toolbox" location and some "tool" assets. Assign all "tool" assets to the "toolbox" location as default location. If I want to lend just one "tool" asset, I can check it out to the person. That's easy. But if I want to lend the whole "toolbox", it's not possible to check out the "toolbox" location to a person. So I need to search for all "tool" assets in the "toolbox" location and check out all to the person.

Both workarounds are not user-friendly and prone to errors.
If someone knows a better workaround or other solution I would be happy to read it.

[snipe]

I'll convert this into a discussion so people can still contribute.

[snipe]

This is an interesting use-case btw. I'm thinking about other ways we can get you there, but certainly invite others to offer up some ideas.