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

Inconsistencies in circuit connection/addressing indication #3674

New Issue
Closed
opened 2025-12-29 18:30:32 +01:00 by adam · 2 comments
adam commented 2025-12-29 18:30:32 +01:00
Owner
Copy Link

Originally created by @abrahamvegh on GitHub (May 11, 2020).

Environment

  • Python version: 3.7.3
  • NetBox version: 2.8.3

Steps to Reproduce

  1. Create a Circuit
  2. Create a Device with two Interfaces
  3. Create and assign an IP address to each Interface (e.g. 203.0.113.1/24, 198.51.100.1/24)
  4. Create Circuit Terminations for both sides of the Circuit in the same Site as the Device
  5. Connect both sides of the Circuit to each of the Interfaces on the Device

Expected Behavior

On the Circuit view, each termination should display the connected Interface, and the IP addresses present on that interface.

Observed Behavior

In my test case, the A side displayed everything as expected, but the Z side did not show the connected device name or interface, nor the IP addresses. If I swapped the terminations on the Circuit view, the Z side then showed everything correctly, and then the A side shows nothing (other than the cable).

Notes

In my test case, I use a single device and terminate the Circuit to two interfaces, but I noticed this issue in production circuits (between devices in different Sites with cables and front/rear ports between them, etc.) before creating the test case specifically to see if I was doing something wrong or if something was actually broken. There may be additional more complex behavior that is broken beyond the simplest concept I tested here.

Originally created by @abrahamvegh on GitHub (May 11, 2020). <!-- NOTE: IF YOUR ISSUE DOES NOT FOLLOW THIS TEMPLATE, IT WILL BE CLOSED. 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, and that any plugins have been disabled. --> ### Environment * Python version: 3.7.3 * NetBox version: 2.8.3 <!-- Describe in detail the exact steps that someone else can take to reproduce this bug using the current stable release of NetBox. Begin with the creation of any necessary database objects and call out every operation being performed explicitly. If reporting a bug in the REST API, be sure to reconstruct the raw HTTP request(s) being made: Don't rely on a client library such as pynetbox. --> ### Steps to Reproduce 1. Create a Circuit 2. Create a Device with two Interfaces 3. Create and assign an IP address to each Interface (e.g. `203.0.113.1/24`, `198.51.100.1/24`) 4. Create Circuit Terminations for both sides of the Circuit in the same Site as the Device 5. Connect both sides of the Circuit to each of the Interfaces on the Device <!-- What did you expect to happen? --> ### Expected Behavior On the Circuit view, each termination should display the connected Interface, and the IP addresses present on that interface. <!-- What happened instead? --> ### Observed Behavior In my test case, the A side displayed everything as expected, but the Z side did not show the connected device name or interface, nor the IP addresses. If I swapped the terminations on the Circuit view, the Z side then showed everything correctly, and then the A side shows nothing (other than the cable). ### Notes In my test case, I use a single device and terminate the Circuit to two interfaces, but I noticed this issue in production circuits (between devices in different Sites with cables and front/rear ports between them, etc.) before creating the test case specifically to see if I was doing something wrong or if something was actually broken. There may be additional more complex behavior that is broken beyond the simplest concept I tested here.
adam added the status: duplicate label 2025-12-29 18:30:32 +01:00
adam closed this issue 2025-12-29 18:30:32 +01:00
adam commented 2025-12-29 18:30:33 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@DanSheps commented on GitHub (May 11, 2020):

Duplicate of #4619

@DanSheps commented on GitHub (May 11, 2020): Duplicate of #4619
adam commented 2025-12-29 18:30:33 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@DanSheps commented on GitHub (May 11, 2020):

It looks like the root cause is it is looking for endpoint information, which is not populated on the termination anymore.

@DanSheps commented on GitHub (May 11, 2020): It looks like the root cause is it is looking for endpoint information, which is not populated on the termination anymore.
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: duplicate
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#3674
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?