starred/netbox
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/netbox-community/netbox.git synced 2026-01-12 05:20:31 +01:00
Code Issues 273 Packages Projects Releases 10 Wiki Activity

Improve interface ordering #5

New Issue
Closed
opened 2025-12-29 15:28:22 +01:00 by adam · 7 comments
adam commented 2025-12-29 15:28:22 +01:00
Owner
Copy Link

Originally created by @jeremystretch on GitHub (May 23, 2016).

We need to come up with a better way of sorting arbitrary interface IDs. The current approach works well for simple cases (e.g. formats Gi0/1 and xe-0/0/1) but falls apart when faced with more exotic IDs, such as Junos' channelized interfaces (e.g. xe-0/0/33:[0-3]).

Originally created by @jeremystretch on GitHub (May 23, 2016). We need to come up with a better way of sorting arbitrary interface IDs. The current approach works well for simple cases (e.g. formats Gi0/1 and xe-0/0/1) but falls apart when faced with more exotic IDs, such as Junos' channelized interfaces (e.g. xe-0/0/33:[0-3]).
adam closed this issue 2025-12-29 15:28:22 +01:00
adam commented 2025-12-29 15:28:24 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@topside844 commented on GitHub (Jun 28, 2016):

The current sort seems to be a simple alphanumeric sort which will not do a proper numeric sort within the numeric part of the interface name. For example, 'Eth1/11' gets listed before 'Eth1/2'. In the past, I've used the python module "natsort" to achieve great results when sorting interface lists like this.

Example:

list = set(['Eth1/1','Eth1/11', 'Eth1/2', 'Eth1/12', 'Eth1/101', 'xe-0/0/33:0', 'xe-0/0/13:2', 'xe-0/0/13:1', 'xe-0/0/13:11', 'xe-0/0/2:1', 'xe-0/0/2:0'])
print '\n'.join(natsort.natsorted(list))

Eth1/1
Eth1/2
Eth1/11
Eth1/12
Eth1/101
xe-0/0/2:0
xe-0/0/2:1
xe-0/0/13:1
xe-0/0/13:2
xe-0/0/13:11
xe-0/0/33:0

@topside844 commented on GitHub (Jun 28, 2016): The current sort seems to be a simple alphanumeric sort which will not do a proper numeric sort within the numeric part of the interface name. For example, 'Eth1/11' gets listed before 'Eth1/2'. In the past, I've used the python module "natsort" to achieve great results when sorting interface lists like this. Example: ``` list = set(['Eth1/1','Eth1/11', 'Eth1/2', 'Eth1/12', 'Eth1/101', 'xe-0/0/33:0', 'xe-0/0/13:2', 'xe-0/0/13:1', 'xe-0/0/13:11', 'xe-0/0/2:1', 'xe-0/0/2:0']) print '\n'.join(natsort.natsorted(list)) ``` > Eth1/1 > Eth1/2 > Eth1/11 > Eth1/12 > Eth1/101 > xe-0/0/2:0 > xe-0/0/2:1 > xe-0/0/13:1 > xe-0/0/13:2 > xe-0/0/13:11 > xe-0/0/33:0
adam commented 2025-12-29 15:28:24 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@topside844 commented on GitHub (Jun 28, 2016):

Also, if you're doing this on the browser side via JS, then you can overload sort using the popular naturalCompare() function

function naturalCompare(a, b) {
    var ax = [], bx = [];

    a.replace(/(\d+)|(\D+)/g, function(_, $1, $2) { ax.push([$1 || Infinity, $2 || ""]) });
    b.replace(/(\d+)|(\D+)/g, function(_, $1, $2) { bx.push([$1 || Infinity, $2 || ""]) });

    while(ax.length && bx.length) {
        var an = ax.shift();
        var bn = bx.shift();
        var nn = (an[0] - bn[0]) || an[1].localeCompare(bn[1]);
        if(nn) return nn;
    }

    return ax.length - bx.length;
}

test = ["Eth1/1","Eth1/11","Eth1/2","Eth1/12","Eth1/101","xe-0/0/33:0","xe-0/0/13:2","xe-0/0/13:1","xe-0/0/13:11","xe-0/0/2:1","xe-0/0/2:0"];
test.sort(naturalCompare);
document.write("<pre>" + JSON.stringify(test,0,3));

[
"Eth1/1",
"Eth1/2",
"Eth1/11",
"Eth1/12",
"Eth1/101",
"xe-0/0/2:0",
"xe-0/0/2:1",
"xe-0/0/13:1",
"xe-0/0/13:2",
"xe-0/0/13:11",
"xe-0/0/33:0"
]

@topside844 commented on GitHub (Jun 28, 2016): Also, if you're doing this on the browser side via JS, then you can overload sort using the popular naturalCompare() function ``` function naturalCompare(a, b) { var ax = [], bx = []; a.replace(/(\d+)|(\D+)/g, function(_, $1, $2) { ax.push([$1 || Infinity, $2 || ""]) }); b.replace(/(\d+)|(\D+)/g, function(_, $1, $2) { bx.push([$1 || Infinity, $2 || ""]) }); while(ax.length && bx.length) { var an = ax.shift(); var bn = bx.shift(); var nn = (an[0] - bn[0]) || an[1].localeCompare(bn[1]); if(nn) return nn; } return ax.length - bx.length; } test = ["Eth1/1","Eth1/11","Eth1/2","Eth1/12","Eth1/101","xe-0/0/33:0","xe-0/0/13:2","xe-0/0/13:1","xe-0/0/13:11","xe-0/0/2:1","xe-0/0/2:0"]; test.sort(naturalCompare); document.write("<pre>" + JSON.stringify(test,0,3)); ``` > [ > "Eth1/1", > "Eth1/2", > "Eth1/11", > "Eth1/12", > "Eth1/101", > "xe-0/0/2:0", > "xe-0/0/2:1", > "xe-0/0/13:1", > "xe-0/0/13:2", > "xe-0/0/13:11", > "xe-0/0/33:0" > ]
adam commented 2025-12-29 15:28:24 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Jun 28, 2016):

This code is responsible for the ordering of interfaces:

return super(InterfaceManager, self).get_queryset().extra(select={
    '_id1': "CAST(SUBSTRING(dcim_interface.name FROM '([0-9]+)\/([0-9]+)\/([0-9]+)$') AS integer)",
    '_id2': "CAST(SUBSTRING(dcim_interface.name FROM '([0-9]+)\/([0-9]+)$') AS integer)",
    '_id3': "CAST(SUBSTRING(dcim_interface.name FROM '([0-9]+)$') AS integer)",
}).order_by('device', '_id1', '_id2', '_id3')

This casts each numerical ID in an interface such as xe-1/2/3 as a separate integer. That's why, for example, ge-0/0/2 is listed before ge-0/0/10. The problem of course is that this approach is extremely rigid, and doesn't work at all outside the x/y/z numbering system.

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Jun 28, 2016): This code is responsible for the ordering of interfaces: ``` return super(InterfaceManager, self).get_queryset().extra(select={ '_id1': "CAST(SUBSTRING(dcim_interface.name FROM '([0-9]+)\/([0-9]+)\/([0-9]+)$') AS integer)", '_id2': "CAST(SUBSTRING(dcim_interface.name FROM '([0-9]+)\/([0-9]+)$') AS integer)", '_id3': "CAST(SUBSTRING(dcim_interface.name FROM '([0-9]+)$') AS integer)", }).order_by('device', '_id1', '_id2', '_id3') ``` This casts each numerical ID in an interface such as xe-1/2/3 as a separate integer. That's why, for example, ge-0/0/2 is listed before ge-0/0/10. The problem of course is that this approach is extremely rigid, and doesn't work at all outside the x/y/z numbering system.
adam commented 2025-12-29 15:28:25 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@topside844 commented on GitHub (Jun 28, 2016):

Apparently I was looking at the interface list within the 'device-type' view, which does appear to be a pure alphanumeric sort. I didn't notice the interface list is 'correct' when viewing an individual device directly.

Looks like the ordering just needs to be applied to the device-type view as well.

@topside844 commented on GitHub (Jun 28, 2016): Apparently I was looking at the interface list within the 'device-type' view, which does appear to be a pure alphanumeric sort. I didn't notice the interface list is 'correct' when viewing an individual device directly. Looks like the ordering just needs to be applied to the device-type view as well.
adam commented 2025-12-29 15:28:25 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Jun 29, 2016):

Good point. We can apply the current scheme there for now. I'd still like to figure something out for a more robust long-term solution.

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Jun 29, 2016): Good point. We can apply the current scheme there for now. I'd still like to figure something out for a more robust long-term solution.
adam commented 2025-12-29 15:28:26 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Jun 29, 2016):

Alright, in b02c54c I added a fourth ID field for ordering and abstracted the ordering logic so that it could be applied to both Interfaces and InterfaceTemplates. Curious to see how it works for people.

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Jun 29, 2016): Alright, in b02c54c I added a fourth ID field for ordering and abstracted the ordering logic so that it could be applied to both Interfaces and InterfaceTemplates. Curious to see how it works for people.
adam commented 2025-12-29 15:28:26 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Jun 29, 2016):

Going to marked this as resolved, but people are welcome to open a new issue if they encounter any further ordering problems (please be sure to provide a specific example when doing so).

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Jun 29, 2016): Going to marked this as resolved, but people are welcome to open a new issue if they encounter any further ordering problems (please be sure to provide a specific example when doing so).
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#5
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?