starred/netbox
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/netbox-community/netbox.git synced 2026-01-13 13:53:31 +01:00
Code Issues 273 Packages Projects Releases 10 Wiki Activity

Implement a more robust model for tracking cable paths #4146

New Issue
Closed
opened 2025-12-29 18:33:26 +01:00 by adam · 2 comments
adam commented 2025-12-29 18:33:26 +01:00
Owner
Copy Link

Originally created by @jeremystretch on GitHub (Sep 28, 2020).

Originally assigned to: @jeremystretch on GitHub.

Proposed Changes

I'm opening this issue to track the research and development into creating a better approach to cable tracking in NetBox. Although many of the details need to be refined, the high-level approach will be to model discrete cable paths individually for each connected object. For example, consider the following topology:

                1                           2
[Device 1] -----------+               +----------- [Device 2]
      Iface1          |               |          Iface2
                  FP1 |       3       | FP2
                  [Panel 1] ----- [Panel 2]
                  FP3 |   RP1   RP2   | FP4
      Iface3          |               |          Iface4
[Device 3] -----------+               +----------- [Device 4]
                4                           5

There are two end-to-end connections present, both via cable 3:

  • Iface 1 <---> Iface 2
  • Iface 3 <---> Iface 4

Currently, these connections are conveyed only on the four individual interfaces. A more robust approach would record each of the four unidirectional end-to-end connections individually, as:

  1. (Iface1, Cable 1, FP1, RP1, Cable 3, RP2, FP2, Cable 2, Iface2)
  2. (Iface2, Cable 2, FP2, RP2, Cable 3, RP1, FP1, Cable 1, Iface1)
  3. (Iface3, Cable 4, FP3, RP1, Cable 3, RP2, FP4, Cable 5, Iface4)
  4. (Iface4, Cable 5, FP4, RP2, Cable 3, RP1, FP3, Cable 4, Iface3)

This approach ensures that we can immediately query all potentially affected points along a path any time any single component within the path changes. For example, if cable 2 is deleted, we know immediately that paths 1 and 2 need to be updated.

Justification

There are several drawbacks to the current model, as evidenced by numerous bug reports over the past few major releases. Rather than continue playing whack-a-mole chasing down errant behaviors individually, we should commit the time and effort to devising a new holistic approach.

Originally created by @jeremystretch on GitHub (Sep 28, 2020). Originally assigned to: @jeremystretch on GitHub. ### Proposed Changes I'm opening this issue to track the research and development into creating a better approach to cable tracking in NetBox. Although many of the details need to be refined, the high-level approach will be to model discrete cable paths individually for each connected object. For example, consider the following topology: ``` 1 2 [Device 1] -----------+ +----------- [Device 2] Iface1 | | Iface2 FP1 | 3 | FP2 [Panel 1] ----- [Panel 2] FP3 | RP1 RP2 | FP4 Iface3 | | Iface4 [Device 3] -----------+ +----------- [Device 4] 4 5 ``` There are two end-to-end connections present, both via cable 3: * Iface 1 <---> Iface 2 * Iface 3 <---> Iface 4 Currently, these connections are conveyed only on the four individual interfaces. A more robust approach would record each of the four unidirectional end-to-end connections individually, as: 1. (Iface1, Cable 1, FP1, RP1, Cable 3, RP2, FP2, Cable 2, Iface2) 2. (Iface2, Cable 2, FP2, RP2, Cable 3, RP1, FP1, Cable 1, Iface1) 3. (Iface3, Cable 4, FP3, RP1, Cable 3, RP2, FP4, Cable 5, Iface4) 4. (Iface4, Cable 5, FP4, RP2, Cable 3, RP1, FP3, Cable 4, Iface3) This approach ensures that we can immediately query all potentially affected points along a path any time any single component within the path changes. For example, if cable 2 is deleted, we know immediately that paths 1 and 2 need to be updated. ### Justification There are several drawbacks to the current model, as evidenced by numerous bug reports over the past few major releases. Rather than continue playing whack-a-mole chasing down errant behaviors individually, we should commit the time and effort to devising a new holistic approach.
adam added the status: duplicate label 2025-12-29 18:33:26 +01:00
adam closed this issue 2025-12-29 18:33:26 +01:00
adam commented 2025-12-29 18:33:26 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@xkilian commented on GitHub (Sep 29, 2020):

This would permit reporting on connexions passing through a patch panel or cable. Good for creating provising reports for new patch panels.
Also useful for tracking down what broke during a fiber optic cable cut and to prioritize fusions to restore service.

@xkilian commented on GitHub (Sep 29, 2020): This would permit reporting on connexions passing through a patch panel or cable. Good for creating provising reports for new patch panels. Also useful for tracking down what broke during a fiber optic cable cut and to prioritize fusions to restore service.
adam commented 2025-12-29 18:33:26 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Sep 29, 2020):

Turns out I already opened an issue for this: #4900

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Sep 29, 2020): Turns out I already opened an issue for this: #4900
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#4146
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?