starred/netbox
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/netbox-community/netbox.git synced 2026-01-11 21:10:29 +01:00
Code Issues 273 Packages Projects Releases 10 Wiki Activity

Unable to trace Cables when single Interfaces are connected across multiple Circuits #11655

New Issue
Closed
opened 2025-12-29 21:48:09 +01:00 by adam · 6 comments
adam commented 2025-12-29 21:48:09 +01:00
Owner
Copy Link

Originally created by @craized on GitHub (Sep 26, 2025).

Originally assigned to: @DanSheps on GitHub.

NetBox Edition

NetBox Community

NetBox Version

v4.4.1

Python Version

3.10

Steps to Reproduce

I created this setup in the NetBox demo instance in case anyone has a chance to look before it gets blown out. I'm just linking the originating interfaces since everything else is very easy to find from a cable trace

https://demo.netbox.dev/dcim/interfaces/2493/
https://demo.netbox.dev/dcim/interfaces/2438/

  1. Create two Sites, SITEA and SITEB
  2. Create two Devices, device1.sitea and device1.siteb (Example QFX5100-48T
  3. Create two Circuits, SPAN1-SITEA-TX and SPAN1-SITEA-RX
  4. Create Circuit Termination at SITEA and SITEB on each Circuit
  5. Connect device1.sitea interface et-0/0/48 to Circuit Termination "A" for both Circuit SPAN1-SITEA-TX and SPAN1-SITEA-RX by
    • Selecting two Circuits, SPAN1-SITEA-TX and SPAN1-SITEA-RX
    • Selecting two Sides, SPAN1-SITEA-TX: Termination A and SPAN1-SITEA-RX: Termination A
  6. Connect device1.siteb interface et-0/0/48 to Circuit Termination "Z" for both Circuit SPAN1-SITEA-TX and SPAN1-SITEA-RX by
    • Selecting two Circuits, SPAN1-SITEA-TX and SPAN1-SITEA-RX
    • Selecting two Sides, SPAN1-SITEA-TX: Termination B and SPAN1-SITEA-RX: Termination B
  7. Attempt to trace interface

Expected Behavior

A cable trace that goes from one interface, splits to both Circuit Termination Zs, then collapses from both Circuit Termination As to the far end interface

Observed Behavior

Path split! is detected between the Circuit and Termination Zs

Initial trace:
Image

Remaining trace after a split node is selected
Image

Originally created by @craized on GitHub (Sep 26, 2025). Originally assigned to: @DanSheps on GitHub. ### NetBox Edition NetBox Community ### NetBox Version v4.4.1 ### Python Version 3.10 ### Steps to Reproduce I created this setup in the NetBox demo instance in case anyone has a chance to look before it gets blown out. I'm just linking the originating interfaces since everything else is very easy to find from a cable trace https://demo.netbox.dev/dcim/interfaces/2493/ https://demo.netbox.dev/dcim/interfaces/2438/ 1. Create two Sites, SITEA and SITEB 2. Create two Devices, device1.sitea and device1.siteb (Example QFX5100-48T 3. Create two Circuits, SPAN1-SITEA-TX and SPAN1-SITEA-RX 4. Create Circuit Termination at SITEA and SITEB on each Circuit 5. Connect device1.sitea interface et-0/0/48 to Circuit Termination "A" for both Circuit SPAN1-SITEA-TX and SPAN1-SITEA-RX by - Selecting two Circuits, SPAN1-SITEA-TX and SPAN1-SITEA-RX - Selecting two Sides, SPAN1-SITEA-TX: Termination A and SPAN1-SITEA-RX: Termination A 6. Connect device1.siteb interface et-0/0/48 to Circuit Termination "Z" for both Circuit SPAN1-SITEA-TX and SPAN1-SITEA-RX by - Selecting two Circuits, SPAN1-SITEA-TX and SPAN1-SITEA-RX - Selecting two Sides, SPAN1-SITEA-TX: Termination B and SPAN1-SITEA-RX: Termination B 7. Attempt to trace interface ### Expected Behavior A cable trace that goes from one interface, splits to both Circuit Termination Zs, then collapses from both Circuit Termination As to the far end interface ### Observed Behavior Path split! is detected between the Circuit and Termination Zs Initial trace: <img width="528" height="665" alt="Image" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/e9d2a102-5d22-4792-88cd-0c6c53911d21" /> Remaining trace after a split node is selected <img width="684" height="659" alt="Image" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/1d02bdb0-71f2-48d5-9947-214eac0b9123" />
adam added the type: bugstatus: acceptednetboxtopic: cablingseverity: low labels 2025-12-29 21:48:09 +01:00
adam closed this issue 2025-12-29 21:48:09 +01:00
adam commented 2025-12-29 21:48:10 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@arthanson commented on GitHub (Sep 29, 2025):

@DanSheps was not getting a reproduction on this, but the cabling wasn't being split so not sure if steps 4 and 5 are clear. Can you check if this is a valid scenario for the cabling tracing. Can be put into the backlog if so, a lower priority to fix.

@arthanson commented on GitHub (Sep 29, 2025): @DanSheps was not getting a reproduction on this, but the cabling wasn't being split so not sure if steps 4 and 5 are clear. Can you check if this is a valid scenario for the cabling tracing. Can be put into the backlog if so, a lower priority to fix.
adam commented 2025-12-29 21:48:10 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@craized commented on GitHub (Sep 29, 2025):

I edited the description to hopefully make it more clear. If it's still unclear I'll re-model in the demo environment and add screenshots of the cable creation. Thank you for starting investigation.

@craized commented on GitHub (Sep 29, 2025): I edited the description to hopefully make it more clear. If it's still unclear I'll re-model in the demo environment and add screenshots of the cable creation. Thank you for starting investigation.
adam commented 2025-12-29 21:48:10 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@DanSheps commented on GitHub (Oct 3, 2025):

I am able to recreate this in my dev environment. I will work on it shortly.

@DanSheps commented on GitHub (Oct 3, 2025): I am able to recreate this in my dev environment. I will work on it shortly.
adam commented 2025-12-29 21:48:11 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@DanSheps commented on GitHub (Oct 3, 2025):

So, looking at this, there are a couple issues:

  1. Mid-Span terminations need to be the same parent (current code)
  2. We create a split and exit at line 774

Both of these are handleable but it might alter future functionality or introduce unintended consequences. I also think this would be better tracked as a feature enhancement, not a bug as this is intended behaviour.

That said, altering the code, I am able to get a proper trace:

Image
@DanSheps commented on GitHub (Oct 3, 2025): So, looking at this, there are a couple issues: 1. Mid-Span terminations need to be the same parent (current code) 2. We create a split and exit at line 774 Both of these are handleable but it might alter future functionality or introduce unintended consequences. I also think this would be better tracked as a feature enhancement, not a bug as this is intended behaviour. That said, altering the code, I am able to get a proper trace: <img width="594" height="832" alt="Image" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/726561d5-0aa6-4377-b5c2-2a0918e6e1ec" />
adam commented 2025-12-29 21:48:11 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Nov 6, 2025):

@DanSheps are you still working on this?

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Nov 6, 2025): @DanSheps are you still working on this?
adam commented 2025-12-29 21:48:11 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@DanSheps commented on GitHub (Nov 7, 2025):

Yes I am, sorry, I was waiting to see if anyone had any thoughts on my comment but looks like there are no strong opinions so I will proceed as a bug for now.

@DanSheps commented on GitHub (Nov 7, 2025): Yes I am, sorry, I was waiting to see if anyone had any thoughts on my comment but looks like there are no strong opinions so I will proceed as a bug for now.
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 netbox severity: low status: accepted topic: cabling 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#11655
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?