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

Natural interface ordering broken (Gi and Te interfaces) #2602

New Issue
Closed
opened 2025-12-29 18:20:18 +01:00 by adam · 2 comments
adam commented 2025-12-29 18:20:18 +01:00
Owner
Copy Link

Originally created by @candlerb on GitHub (May 10, 2019).

Environment

  • Python version: 3.5.2
  • NetBox version: 2.5.12

Steps to Reproduce

  1. Create a new Device or Device Type
  2. Add ports Gi1/0/[1-48]
  3. Add ports Te1/0/[1-4]

Expected Behavior

Interfaces to be shown grouped by type as:

  • Gi1/0/1
  • Gi1/0/2
  • Gi1/0/3
  • ...
  • Gi1/0/24
  • Te1/0/1
  • Te1/0/2
  • Te1/0/3
  • Te1/0/4

Observed Behavior

Interfaces of different types are mixed together.

  • Gi1/0/1
  • Te1/0/1
  • Gi1/0/2
  • Te1/0/2
  • Gi1/0/3
  • Te1/0/3
  • Gi1/0/4
  • Te1/0/4
  • Gi1/0/5
  • Gi1/0/6
  • ...

Maybe relates to: #3097, #3127 (but the commit for #3127 made it into 2.5.12, which is what I'm running)

Originally created by @candlerb on GitHub (May 10, 2019). ### Environment * Python version: 3.5.2 * NetBox version: 2.5.12 ### Steps to Reproduce 1. Create a new Device or Device Type 2. Add ports `Gi1/0/[1-48]` 3. Add ports `Te1/0/[1-4]` ### Expected Behavior Interfaces to be shown grouped by type as: * Gi1/0/1 * Gi1/0/2 * Gi1/0/3 * ... * Gi1/0/24 * Te1/0/1 * Te1/0/2 * Te1/0/3 * Te1/0/4 ### Observed Behavior Interfaces of different types are mixed together. * Gi1/0/1 * Te1/0/1 * Gi1/0/2 * Te1/0/2 * Gi1/0/3 * Te1/0/3 * Gi1/0/4 * Te1/0/4 * Gi1/0/5 * Gi1/0/6 * ... Maybe relates to: #3097, #3127 (but the commit for #3127 made it into 2.5.12, which is what I'm running)
adam closed this issue 2025-12-29 18:20:18 +01:00
adam commented 2025-12-29 18:20:18 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (May 10, 2019):

This was raised in #2872:

Closing this out as there's not much we can do about it. Cisco made the unfortunate decision to reuse position indices for different types, which results in a sort of zipper effect when the interfaces are ordered. Previously, this was handled by a field on the DeviceType which informed which type of ordering to use for interfaces (media first or slot/position first), but this was removed because it made it impossible to list interfaces outside the context of a specific device.

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (May 10, 2019): This was raised in #2872: > Closing this out as there's not much we can do about it. Cisco made the unfortunate decision to reuse position indices for different types, which results in a sort of zipper effect when the interfaces are ordered. Previously, this was handled by a field on the DeviceType which informed which type of ordering to use for interfaces (media first or slot/position first), but this was removed because it made it impossible to list interfaces outside the context of a specific device.
adam commented 2025-12-29 18:20:19 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@RHuehne commented on GitHub (Jan 13, 2020):

Well, if there was an Checkbox in the Device type whether to use "normal" sorting or "Alphanumerical" sorting and having two different sort logics in the background cloud solve this. Otherwise there could be a parent ordering on interface type so that by default it's sorted by device type (e.g. all GE1 and ALL SFP+ (10GE) would be listed together). Cheers

@RHuehne commented on GitHub (Jan 13, 2020): Well, if there was an Checkbox in the Device type whether to use "normal" sorting or "Alphanumerical" sorting and having two different sort logics in the background cloud solve this. Otherwise there could be a parent ordering on interface type so that by default it's sorted by device type (e.g. all GE1 and ALL SFP+ (10GE) would be listed together). Cheers
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
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#2602
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?