starred/netbox
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/netbox-community/netbox.git synced 2026-01-13 22:03:32 +01:00
Code Issues 273 Packages Projects Releases 10 Wiki Activity

Cable Trace visual issue #10918

New Issue
Closed
opened 2025-12-29 21:37:43 +01:00 by adam · 8 comments
adam commented 2025-12-29 21:37:43 +01:00
Owner
Copy Link

Originally created by @krancslawomir on GitHub (Mar 19, 2025).

Originally assigned to: @jeremystretch on GitHub.

Deployment Type

Self-hosted

NetBox Version

v.4.2.5

Python Version

3.11

Steps to Reproduce

Connect with each other 2 Devices with rear ports then set cable trace.

Image

Expected Behavior

99 should be on the left side and 100 on the right
Cables should not cross each other.

Observed Behavior

First of all the 99 should be on the left side and 100 on the right

Image

Besides that between ports 3,4 and 100,99 there are 2 cross-connections.
Unfortunately, they overlap each other.
The inscription Cable # 628 is a visual bug you can't see what is underneath.

Originally created by @krancslawomir on GitHub (Mar 19, 2025). Originally assigned to: @jeremystretch on GitHub. ### Deployment Type Self-hosted ### NetBox Version v.4.2.5 ### Python Version 3.11 ### Steps to Reproduce Connect with each other 2 Devices with rear ports then set cable trace. ![Image](https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/3d4a495a-08f0-42b7-aa22-67f54c1e5379) ### Expected Behavior 99 should be on the left side and 100 on the right Cables should not cross each other. ### Observed Behavior First of all the 99 should be on the left side and 100 on the right ![Image](https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/282e3faa-204f-4be5-be7b-b90f770244c6) Besides that between ports 3,4 and 100,99 there are 2 cross-connections. Unfortunately, they overlap each other. The inscription Cable # 628 is a visual bug you can't see what is underneath.
adam added the type: bugstatus: acceptedseverity: low labels 2025-12-29 21:37:43 +01:00
adam closed this issue 2025-12-29 21:37:43 +01:00
adam commented 2025-12-29 21:37:44 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jnovinger commented on GitHub (Mar 26, 2025):

@krancslawomir , can you provide a complete and detailed list of steps to take to recreate this issue from an empty install of NetBox? I've tried in both 4.2.5 and 4.2.6 and am not having any luck reproducing the bug.

@jnovinger commented on GitHub (Mar 26, 2025): @krancslawomir , can you provide a complete and detailed list of steps to take to recreate this issue from an empty install of NetBox? I've tried in both 4.2.5 and 4.2.6 and am not having any luck reproducing the bug.
adam commented 2025-12-29 21:37:44 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@github-actions[bot] commented on GitHub (Apr 3, 2025):

This is a reminder that additional information is needed in order to further triage this issue. If the requested details are not provided, the issue will soon be closed automatically.

@github-actions[bot] commented on GitHub (Apr 3, 2025): This is a reminder that additional information is needed in order to further triage this issue. If the requested details are not provided, the issue will soon be closed automatically.
adam commented 2025-12-29 21:37:44 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@krancslawomir commented on GitHub (Apr 3, 2025):

I'm afraid it's impossible for me to recreate this issue from an empty install of NetBox.
My company's NetBox is full of production data.

I'll try to recreate this issue in the demo.netbox.dev and I'll let you know about results.

@krancslawomir commented on GitHub (Apr 3, 2025): I'm afraid it's impossible for me to recreate this issue from an empty install of NetBox. My company's NetBox is full of production data. I'll try to recreate this issue in the demo.netbox.dev and I'll let you know about results.
adam commented 2025-12-29 21:37:44 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Apr 4, 2025):

I wonder if this is as simple as 100 being ordered before 99 because they're sorted as strings (1 being lesser than 9).

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Apr 4, 2025): I wonder if this is as simple as 100 being ordered before 99 because they're sorted as strings (1 being lesser than 9).
adam commented 2025-12-29 21:37:45 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jakubsokolowski01 commented on GitHub (Apr 4, 2025):

Hello, I'm working with @krancslawomir and I managed to reproduce the problem on https://demo.netbox.dev/.
I started by creating Patch Panel (!TEST! ODF2) having 144 ports in the !TEST! rack.
The front ports are named [A-L][1-12]. Rear ports are named 1-144.
The second patch panel (!TEST! ODF3) having 24 ports I also added to the rack !TEST!
The front ports are named [1-12][a-b]. Rear ports are named Port[1-24].

Image

I connected Rear ports 105 and 106 of Patch Panel !TEST! ODF2 to Patch Panel !TEST! ODF3 rear ports 9 and 10 (the connection looks like this 105<->9 and 106<->10)

Image

Image

Then I added a new device (!TEST! DEV1) and in it I added interfaces.
In the next step, I connected interface C3 (!TEST! DEV1) to front ports 5a and 5b of Patch Panel !TEST! ODF3 (5a is connected to rear port 9, and 5b is connected to 10).

Image

Image

When you click “Trace”, in the screenshot below, you can see the replicated error.

Image

It looks like NetBox is swapping the order of the displayed back ports, causing this visual connection display error ( swaps the order of rear Port 10 with Port 9 !TEST! ODF3) Possibly related to what @jeremystretch writes

Image

@jakubsokolowski01 commented on GitHub (Apr 4, 2025): Hello, I'm working with @krancslawomir and I managed to reproduce the problem on https://demo.netbox.dev/. I started by creating Patch Panel (!TEST! ODF2) having 144 ports in the !TEST! rack. The front ports are named [A-L][1-12]. Rear ports are named 1-144. The second patch panel (!TEST! ODF3) having 24 ports I also added to the rack !TEST! The front ports are named [1-12][a-b]. Rear ports are named Port[1-24]. ![Image](https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/462dd5a7-55b7-4c1f-beb0-a66425cc1d29) I connected Rear ports 105 and 106 of Patch Panel !TEST! ODF2 to Patch Panel !TEST! ODF3 rear ports 9 and 10 (the connection looks like this 105<->9 and 106<->10) ![Image](https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/14f08c63-d3a4-4fc6-b18f-fe67c59564d7) ![Image](https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/d5c44391-ed36-4806-858e-a038cd76b533) Then I added a new device (!TEST! DEV1) and in it I added interfaces. In the next step, I connected interface C3 (!TEST! DEV1) to front ports 5a and 5b of Patch Panel !TEST! ODF3 (5a is connected to rear port 9, and 5b is connected to 10). ![Image](https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/ab4e338b-9e0f-4896-a3d3-fefa1c92dc4f) ![Image](https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/5dacb625-1d2a-4009-9a6c-7c49d10df194) When you click “Trace”, in the screenshot below, you can see the replicated error. ![Image](https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/8ec9f646-9219-415d-b16b-de0398f67282) It looks like NetBox is swapping the order of the displayed back ports, causing this visual connection display error ( swaps the order of rear Port 10 with Port 9 !TEST! ODF3) Possibly related to what @jeremystretch writes ![Image](https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/49453678-4a06-4241-b2b9-ccd4f9dabade)
adam commented 2025-12-29 21:37:45 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Apr 4, 2025):

@jakubsokolowski01 if you rename Port 9 to Port 09 does it fix the ordering?

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Apr 4, 2025): @jakubsokolowski01 if you rename Port 9 to Port 09 does it fix the ordering?
adam commented 2025-12-29 21:37:46 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jakubsokolowski01 commented on GitHub (Apr 4, 2025):

@jeremystretch Yes it fix the ordering.

Image

@jakubsokolowski01 commented on GitHub (Apr 4, 2025): @jeremystretch Yes it fix the ordering. ![Image](https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/a627c1f3-0e32-4283-94da-4a3a37b31504)
adam commented 2025-12-29 21:37:46 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Apr 4, 2025):

Great, thank you. It seems like this is just a natural ordering issue with front & rear ports (not actually related to the cable trace). We should look into enabling natural ordering for all device components, similar to what we do for interfaces currently.

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Apr 4, 2025): Great, thank you. It seems like this is just a [natural ordering](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_sort_order) issue with front & rear ports (not actually related to the cable trace). We should look into enabling natural ordering for all device components, similar to what we do for interfaces currently.
Sign in to join this conversation.
No Branch/Tag Specified
Branches Tags
Labels
Clear labels
beta
breaking change
complexity: high
complexity: low
complexity: medium
needs milestone
netbox
pending closure
plugin candidate
pull-request
Mirrored from GitHub Pull Request
 severity: high
severity: low
severity: medium
status: accepted
status: backlog
status: blocked
status: duplicate
status: needs owner
status: needs triage
status: revisions needed
status: under review
topic: GraphQL
topic: Internationalization
topic: OpenAPI
topic: UI/UX
topic: cabling
topic: event rules
topic: htmx navigation
topic: industrialization
topic: migrations
topic: plugins
topic: scripts
topic: templating
topic: testing
type: bug
type: deprecation
type: documentation
type: feature
type: housekeeping
type: translation
No Label severity: low status: accepted type: bug
Milestone
No items
No Milestone
Projects
Clear projects
No project
Assignees
Clear assignees
adam
No Assignees
1 Participants
Notifications
Due Date
No due date set.
Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference: starred/netbox#10918
Delete Branch "%!s()"

Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?