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

[PR #6891] [CLOSED] feat: add cable reconnection #13183

New Issue
Closed
opened 2025-12-29 22:25:51 +01:00 by adam · 0 comments
adam commented 2025-12-29 22:25:51 +01:00
Owner
Copy Link

📋 Pull Request Information

Original PR: https://github.com/netbox-community/netbox/pull/6891
Author: @hellerve
Created: 8/5/2021
Status: ❌ Closed

Base: develop ← Head: feat/cable-move

📝 Commits (1)

  • f8d7c02 feat: add cable reconnection

📊 Changes

5 files changed (+811 additions, -0 deletions)

View changed files

📝 netbox/dcim/forms.py (+568 -0)
📝 netbox/dcim/urls.py (+1 -0)
📝 netbox/dcim/views.py (+98 -0)
📝 netbox/templates/dcim/cable.html (+4 -0)
➕ netbox/templates/dcim/cable_reconnect.html (+140 -0)

📄 Description

Fixes: #4881

Note: This is marked as a draft PR, since it is rather big and makes some tradeoffs that we might have to talk about and reconsider. It also has no automated tests, since there are no cable form test cases. Should I try to add them anyway? My guess is “yes”, but I’d like to verify before doing that work :)

This PR adds, on the face of it, a button labelled Reconnect to a cable detail. The form that it leads to allows for both sides of the cable to move. As such, we needed to implement all the missing forms—18 in total. Another option would be to be able to edit just one side at a time, and do that from the device component table. This would possibly allow us to reuse the forms we already have. Since this is the implementation I had at hand (in a plugin, I can’t really edit the table), I stuck with this solution for now. Happy to change it.

It also, under the hood, deletes the cable and recreates it. This means that the PK changes on reconnection, which should be a non-issue in most cases. Otherwise we’d have to touch the cable model, which I refrained from doing for now. Again, happy to change that.

The use case of moving ends of a cable seems to work, though, so that’s good :)

Cheers

🔄 This issue represents a GitHub Pull Request. It cannot be merged through Gitea due to API limitations.

## 📋 Pull Request Information **Original PR:** https://github.com/netbox-community/netbox/pull/6891 **Author:** [@hellerve](https://github.com/hellerve) **Created:** 8/5/2021 **Status:** ❌ Closed **Base:** `develop` ← **Head:** `feat/cable-move` --- ### 📝 Commits (1) - [`f8d7c02`](https://github.com/netbox-community/netbox/commit/f8d7c024e7696b4d0dbb27ed685faf7efc21cdac) feat: add cable reconnection ### 📊 Changes **5 files changed** (+811 additions, -0 deletions) <details> <summary>View changed files</summary> 📝 `netbox/dcim/forms.py` (+568 -0) 📝 `netbox/dcim/urls.py` (+1 -0) 📝 `netbox/dcim/views.py` (+98 -0) 📝 `netbox/templates/dcim/cable.html` (+4 -0) ➕ `netbox/templates/dcim/cable_reconnect.html` (+140 -0) </details> ### 📄 Description ### Fixes: #4881 **Note:** This is marked as a draft PR, since it is rather big and makes some tradeoffs that we might have to talk about and reconsider. It also has no automated tests, since there are no cable form test cases. Should I try to add them anyway? My guess is “yes”, but I’d like to verify before doing that work :) This PR adds, on the face of it, a button labelled `Reconnect` to a cable detail. The form that it leads to allows for both sides of the cable to move. As such, we needed to implement all the missing forms—18 in total. Another option would be to be able to edit just one side at a time, and do that from the device component table. This would possibly allow us to reuse the forms we already have. Since this is the implementation I had at hand (in a plugin, I can’t really edit the table), I stuck with this solution for now. Happy to change it. It also, under the hood, deletes the cable and recreates it. This means that the PK changes on reconnection, which should be a non-issue in most cases. Otherwise we’d have to touch the cable model, which I refrained from doing for now. Again, happy to change that. The use case of moving ends of a cable seems to work, though, so that’s good :) Cheers --- <sub>🔄 This issue represents a GitHub Pull Request. It cannot be merged through Gitea due to API limitations.</sub>
adam added the pull-request label 2025-12-29 22:25:51 +01:00
adam closed this issue 2025-12-29 22:25:51 +01:00
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 pull-request
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#13183
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?