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

Interfaces tab on VC master shows count of only local interfaces #4475

New Issue
Closed
opened 2025-12-29 18:36:24 +01:00 by adam · 3 comments
adam commented 2025-12-29 18:36:24 +01:00
Owner
Copy Link

Originally created by @cpmills1975 on GitHub (Jan 20, 2021).

Originally assigned to: @jeremystretch on GitHub.

Environment

  • Python version: 2.10.3
  • NetBox version: 3.9

Steps to Reproduce

  1. Create two devices with a bunch of interfaces
  2. Create a new virtual chassis and add the two devices
  3. Inspect the interfaces tab on the VC master - the count shows only the local ports while the table shows all the vc member ports

Expected Behavior

Either:

  • The interface count includes all the interfaces in the virtual chassis, as the table does -or-
  • A better way to show local vs chassis member interfaces is needed - perhaps two tables, one showing local interfaces and a second table showing interfaces on other connected virtual chassis members?

To be clear, I don't want to lose the functionality of being able to see all interfaces on the master member somewhere.

Observed Behavior

The count of interfaces shows the local interfaces while the table shows all interfaces across all connected members.

Originally created by @cpmills1975 on GitHub (Jan 20, 2021). Originally assigned to: @jeremystretch on GitHub. <!-- NOTE: IF YOUR ISSUE DOES NOT FOLLOW THIS TEMPLATE, IT WILL BE CLOSED. This form is only for reporting reproducible bugs. If you need assistance with NetBox installation, or if you have a general question, please start a discussion instead: https://github.com/netbox-community/netbox/discussions 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: 2.10.3 * NetBox version: 3.9 <!-- 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 two devices with a bunch of interfaces 2. Create a new virtual chassis and add the two devices 3. Inspect the interfaces tab on the VC master - the count shows only the local ports while the table shows all the vc member ports <!-- What did you expect to happen? --> ### Expected Behavior Either: * The interface count includes all the interfaces in the virtual chassis, as the table does -or- * A better way to show local vs chassis member interfaces is needed - perhaps two tables, one showing local interfaces and a second table showing interfaces on other connected virtual chassis members? To be clear, I don't want to lose the functionality of being able to see all interfaces on the master member somewhere. <!-- What happened instead? --> ### Observed Behavior The count of interfaces shows the local interfaces while the table shows all interfaces across all connected members.
adam added the type: bugstatus: accepted labels 2025-12-29 18:36:24 +01:00
adam closed this issue 2025-12-29 18:36:24 +01:00
adam commented 2025-12-29 18:36:25 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@DanSheps commented on GitHub (Jan 21, 2021):

I am not sure if this should be a bug or a feature request.

It isn't a bug in that it is correctly listing the count of local interfaces, but since we do list all VC interfaces on the master it is kind of a bug. Perhaps we need a new view of "VC Interfaces" that comes up just on the master.

@DanSheps commented on GitHub (Jan 21, 2021): I am not sure if this should be a bug or a feature request. It isn't a bug in that it is correctly listing the count of local interfaces, but since we do list all VC interfaces on the master it is kind of a bug. Perhaps we need a new view of "VC Interfaces" that comes up just on the master.
adam commented 2025-12-29 18:36:25 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@cpmills1975 commented on GitHub (Jan 22, 2021):

A view of VC interfaces would work for me I think and would allow the user to differentiate between the interfaces physically present on the master and those that are only logically present on the master.

Question of usability though and something I'd be keen for other users to chime in on, does the VC interfaces view include both the physical ones present on the master AND the interfaces present on other members or just those present on other members?

Could the VC interfaces tab be present on all members of the virtual chassis since all members are technically part of the same managed entity?

Should the interfaces tab show a count of all interfaces across the entire virtual chassis and then break the list in to two tables? Those physically present on this member and those defined on other members? This idea wouldn't have worked well when all interfaces were shown on the one device page, but perhaps now we have a separate page for interfaces there is more space to play with? I think this would be my preferred option. I guess this makes the JS filter box less useful, but I can't get that working anyway!

The big issue here for me at present is that the table might show 480 odd interfaces (assuming a 10 member JunOS VC) but the number on the tab will show 48. It doesn't matter how it's spun, this is misleading.

@cpmills1975 commented on GitHub (Jan 22, 2021): A view of VC interfaces would work for me I think and would allow the user to differentiate between the interfaces physically present on the master and those that are only logically present on the master. Question of usability though and something I'd be keen for other users to chime in on, does the VC interfaces view include both the physical ones present on the master AND the interfaces present on other members or just those present on other members? Could the VC interfaces tab be present on all members of the virtual chassis since all members are technically part of the same managed entity? Should the interfaces tab show a count of all interfaces across the entire virtual chassis and then break the list in to two tables? Those physically present on this member and those defined on other members? This idea wouldn't have worked well when all interfaces were shown on the one device page, but perhaps now we have a separate page for interfaces there is more space to play with? I think this would be my preferred option. I guess this makes the JS filter box less useful, but I can't get that working anyway! The big issue here for me at present is that the table might show 480 odd interfaces (assuming a 10 member JunOS VC) but the number on the tab will show 48. It doesn't matter how it's spun, this is misleading.
adam commented 2025-12-29 18:36:25 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Jan 25, 2021):

Calling it a bug simply because the number on the tab doesn't match the number of objects in the table.

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Jan 25, 2021): Calling it a bug simply because the number on the tab doesn't match the number of objects in the table.
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#4475
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?