starred/netbox
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/netbox-community/netbox.git synced 2026-01-14 06:13:32 +01:00
Code Issues 273 Packages Projects Releases 10 Wiki Activity

Allow planned cables to use currently used interfaces #3251

New Issue
Closed
opened 2025-12-29 18:27:06 +01:00 by adam · 6 comments
adam commented 2025-12-29 18:27:06 +01:00
Owner
Copy Link

Originally created by @jpqpi on GitHub (Jan 30, 2020).

Environment

NetBox version: 2.7.2

Proposed Functionality

Currently there doesn't seem to be a way to facilitate planned upcoming cable moves without deleting (and therefore losing) the current connectivity info because NetBox won't allow a planned cable to use an interface that is currently in use.

Similar to VIP IP addresses allowing duplicate entries in the database, allowing "planned" cables to use interfaces that are currently marked "active" would better capture a future planned move for this cable while preserving the current state.

Use Case

By allowing "planned" and "active" cables to the same interface in the database, users would see both the current state of the connectivity and the future planned state. when the operational works are complete the active cable could then be easily deleted and the planned cable could be changed to active instead of either a) overwriting the current connectivity with planned works or b) having to wait till after the work is completed to update the design.

Database Changes

Allow both a "planned" and an "active" connection to each interface in the cable section of the database.

Originally created by @jpqpi on GitHub (Jan 30, 2020). ### Environment NetBox version: 2.7.2 ### Proposed Functionality Currently there doesn't seem to be a way to facilitate planned upcoming cable moves without deleting (and therefore losing) the current connectivity info because NetBox won't allow a planned cable to use an interface that is currently in use. Similar to VIP IP addresses allowing duplicate entries in the database, allowing "planned" cables to use interfaces that are currently marked "active" would better capture a future planned move for this cable while preserving the current state. ### Use Case By allowing "planned" and "active" cables to the same interface in the database, users would see both the current state of the connectivity and the future planned state. when the operational works are complete the active cable could then be easily deleted and the planned cable could be changed to active instead of either a) overwriting the current connectivity with planned works or b) having to wait till after the work is completed to update the design. ### Database Changes Allow both a "planned" and an "active" connection to each interface in the cable section of the database.
adam closed this issue 2025-12-29 18:27:06 +01:00
adam commented 2025-12-29 18:27:07 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@DanSheps commented on GitHub (Jan 30, 2020):

This issue has been closed as it does not conform to one of the provided templates as required by the contributing guide. If you'd like to request that your issue be re-opened, please first update the content so that it matches the appropriate template (this may require rewriting your issue entirely).

@DanSheps commented on GitHub (Jan 30, 2020): This issue has been closed as it does not conform to one of the [provided templates](https://github.com/digitalocean/netbox/issues/new/choose) as required by the [contributing guide](https://github.com/digitalocean/netbox/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md). If you'd like to request that your issue be re-opened, please first update the content so that it matches the appropriate template (this may require rewriting your issue entirely).
adam commented 2025-12-29 18:27:07 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jpqpi commented on GitHub (Jan 30, 2020):

Hi Dan, I'm sorry but I'm not sure how to request that this to be reopened. Could you help me?

@jpqpi commented on GitHub (Jan 30, 2020): Hi Dan, I'm sorry but I'm not sure how to request that this to be reopened. Could you help me?
adam commented 2025-12-29 18:27:07 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@stale[bot] commented on GitHub (Feb 13, 2020):

This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed if no further activity occurs. NetBox is governed by a small group of core maintainers which means not all opened issues may receive direct feedback. Please see our contributing guide.

@stale[bot] commented on GitHub (Feb 13, 2020): This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed if no further activity occurs. NetBox is governed by a small group of core maintainers which means not all opened issues may receive direct feedback. Please see our [contributing guide](https://github.com/netbox-community/netbox/blob/develop/CONTRIBUTING.md).
adam commented 2025-12-29 18:27:07 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@phurrelmann commented on GitHub (Feb 13, 2020):

this feature would ease refactoring and rewiring of racks. currently one has to plan the cabling outside of netbox, because the new cables can't be modeled unless the productive ones are removed.

@phurrelmann commented on GitHub (Feb 13, 2020): this feature would ease refactoring and rewiring of racks. currently one has to plan the cabling outside of netbox, because the new cables can't be modeled unless the productive ones are removed.
adam commented 2025-12-29 18:27:07 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Feb 18, 2020):

While I agree that this would be a nice feature, it would be an absolute nightmare to implement. It would require largely reworking the entire physical cabling model, not to mention devising a mechanism to toggle between "current" and "future" views in the UI. It's just not something we'll be able to spend the necessary development time on in the near future.

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Feb 18, 2020): While I agree that this would be a nice feature, it would be an absolute nightmare to implement. It would require largely reworking the entire physical cabling model, not to mention devising a mechanism to toggle between "current" and "future" views in the UI. It's just not something we'll be able to spend the necessary development time on in the near future.
adam commented 2025-12-29 18:27:07 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jpqpi commented on GitHub (Feb 19, 2020):

Thanks for getting back to me on this, its highly appreciated.

Paul

On Tue 18 Feb 2020, 21:49 Jeremy Stretch, notifications@github.com wrote:

While I agree that this would be a nice feature, it would be an absolute
nightmare to implement. It would require largely reworking the entire
physical cabling model, not to mention devising a mechanism to toggle
between "current" and "future" views in the UI. It's just not something
we'll be able to spend the necessary development time on in the near future.

—
You are receiving this because you authored the thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
https://github.com/netbox-community/netbox/issues/4058?email_source=notifications&email_token=AONN22MNGXE4CNPT5J4DT3TRDRJWLA5CNFSM4KNZZPR2YY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFVREXG43VMVBW63LNMVXHJKTDN5WW2ZLOORPWSZGOEMFM45Y#issuecomment-587910775,
or unsubscribe
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AONN22KAFFZTHB6KR73EOSLRDRJWLANCNFSM4KNZZPRQ
.

@jpqpi commented on GitHub (Feb 19, 2020): Thanks for getting back to me on this, its highly appreciated. Paul On Tue 18 Feb 2020, 21:49 Jeremy Stretch, <notifications@github.com> wrote: > While I agree that this would be a nice feature, it would be an absolute > nightmare to implement. It would require largely reworking the entire > physical cabling model, not to mention devising a mechanism to toggle > between "current" and "future" views in the UI. It's just not something > we'll be able to spend the necessary development time on in the near future. > > — > You are receiving this because you authored the thread. > Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub > <https://github.com/netbox-community/netbox/issues/4058?email_source=notifications&email_token=AONN22MNGXE4CNPT5J4DT3TRDRJWLA5CNFSM4KNZZPR2YY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFVREXG43VMVBW63LNMVXHJKTDN5WW2ZLOORPWSZGOEMFM45Y#issuecomment-587910775>, > or unsubscribe > <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AONN22KAFFZTHB6KR73EOSLRDRJWLANCNFSM4KNZZPRQ> > . >
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#3251
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?