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

While doing connection interfaces "maximum recursion depth exceeded" #2121

New Issue
Closed
opened 2025-12-29 17:22:27 +01:00 by adam · 1 comment
adam commented 2025-12-29 17:22:27 +01:00
Owner
Copy Link

Originally created by @a31amit on GitHub (Nov 13, 2018).

Environment

  • Python version: 3.7.1
  • NetBox version: develop-2.5 [ Netbox 2.5 Develop Branch ]

Steps to Reproduce

  1. Create a Device without any interfaces or ports
  2. Create Rear Port - R[1-5]
  3. Create Front Port - F[1-5] and select Rear Port for them
  4. Try to make the connection for F1 to R1 or vice versa

Expected Behavior

either make the connection without problem or some validation should be there to prevent a failure of request.

Observed Behavior

This cause a recurrsion issue in netbox. Also After opening new window, I can see that cable was created and showing connected to interface but there is no data in changelog for particular cable.

Traceback log is also attached
netbox-2.5-develop-recursion bug.txt

Request Method: POST
Request URL: http://${NETBOX_SERVER}:8080/dcim/front-ports/7/connect/
Django Version: 2.1.3
Exception Type: RecursionError
Exception Value: maximum recursion depth exceeded while calling a Python object

Exception Location: /opt/netboxd/python37/lib/python3.7/site-packages/django/db/models/expressions.py in getstate, line 157

Python Executable: /opt/netboxd/python37/bin/python
Python Version: 3.7.1

Originally created by @a31amit on GitHub (Nov 13, 2018). <!-- NOTE: This form is only for reproducible bugs. If you need assistance with NetBox installation, or if you have a general question, DO NOT open an issue. Instead, post to our mailing list: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/netbox-discuss Please describe the environment in which you are running NetBox. Be sure that you are running an unmodified instance of the latest stable release before submitting a bug report. --> ### Environment * Python version: 3.7.1 * NetBox version: develop-2.5 [ Netbox 2.5 Develop Branch ] <!-- Describe in detail the steps that someone else can take to reproduce this bug using the current stable release of NetBox (or the current beta release where applicable). --> ### Steps to Reproduce 1. Create a Device without any interfaces or ports 2. Create Rear Port - R[1-5] 3. Create Front Port - F[1-5] and select Rear Port for them 4. Try to make the connection for F1 to R1 or vice versa <!-- What did you expect to happen? --> ### Expected Behavior either make the connection without problem or some validation should be there to prevent a failure of request. <!-- What happened instead? --> ### Observed Behavior This cause a recurrsion issue in netbox. Also After opening new window, I can see that cable was created and showing connected to interface but there is no data in changelog for particular cable. Traceback log is also attached [netbox-2.5-develop-recursion bug.txt](https://github.com/digitalocean/netbox/files/2574110/netbox-2.5-develop-recursion.bug.txt) Request Method: POST Request URL: http://${NETBOX_SERVER}:8080/dcim/front-ports/7/connect/ Django Version: 2.1.3 Exception Type: RecursionError Exception Value: maximum recursion depth exceeded while calling a Python object Exception Location: /opt/netboxd/python37/lib/python3.7/site-packages/django/db/models/expressions.py in __getstate__, line 157 Python Executable: /opt/netboxd/python37/bin/python Python Version: 3.7.1
adam added the type: bugstatus: accepted labels 2025-12-29 17:22:27 +01:00
adam closed this issue 2025-12-29 17:22:27 +01:00
adam commented 2025-12-29 17:22:28 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@lampwins commented on GitHub (Nov 13, 2018):

The main issue here is that this should not be allowed in the first place. There is no reason to connect a Front Port to its responding Rear Port. They are already mapped together by way of the Front Port. In the real world, this would be nothing more than a closed loop on a patch panel.

@lampwins commented on GitHub (Nov 13, 2018): The main issue here is that this should not be allowed in the first place. There is no reason to connect a Front Port to its responding Rear Port. They are already mapped together by way of the Front Port. In the real world, this would be nothing more than a closed loop on a patch panel.
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 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#2121
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?