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

The UI for device interfaces cannot handle same slot number range with a different prefix #612

New Issue
Closed
opened 2025-12-29 16:23:50 +01:00 by adam · 3 comments
adam commented 2025-12-29 16:23:50 +01:00
Owner
Copy Link

Originally created by @x-radeon on GitHub (Jan 5, 2017).

When adding two different ranges of interfaces for a device, the UI doesn't like it when you use the same slot number even if the prefix is different, example:

Both of these added to single device
Fa0/[1-48]
Gi0/[1-4]

Will show as this:
Gi0/1 100BASE-TX (10/100ME)
Fa0/1 100BASE-TX (10/100ME)
Gi0/2 100BASE-TX (10/100ME)
Fa0/2 100BASE-TX (10/100ME)
Gi0/3 100BASE-TX (10/100ME)
Gi0/3 100BASE-TX (10/100ME)
Gi0/4 100BASE-TX (10/100ME)
Gi0/4 100BASE-TX (10/100ME)
Fa0/5 100BASE-TX (10/100ME)
Fa0/6 100BASE-TX (10/100ME)
Fa0/7 100BASE-TX (10/100ME)
...

(This is from a Cisco 3560-48PS which has 48 fast ethernet ports and 4 gig sfp ports. When you do a sh int desc it shows as Fa0/1-48 then Gi0/1-4.)

If I just simply do this, there's no issue:
Fa0/[1-48]
Gi1/[1-4]

But doing that doesn't match the switch. It also appears that there is no issue actually adding the interfaces and they are there in the database correctly, I assume, but just not shown properly.

ps RIP issue title, I have no idea how to condense that down further.

Originally created by @x-radeon on GitHub (Jan 5, 2017). When adding two different ranges of interfaces for a device, the UI doesn't like it when you use the same slot number even if the prefix is different, example: Both of these added to single device Fa0/[1-48] Gi0/[1-4] Will show as this: Gi0/1 100BASE-TX (10/100ME) Fa0/1 100BASE-TX (10/100ME) Gi0/2 100BASE-TX (10/100ME) Fa0/2 100BASE-TX (10/100ME) Gi0/3 100BASE-TX (10/100ME) Gi0/3 100BASE-TX (10/100ME) Gi0/4 100BASE-TX (10/100ME) Gi0/4 100BASE-TX (10/100ME) Fa0/5 100BASE-TX (10/100ME) Fa0/6 100BASE-TX (10/100ME) Fa0/7 100BASE-TX (10/100ME) ... (This is from a Cisco 3560-48PS which has 48 fast ethernet ports and 4 gig sfp ports. When you do a sh int desc it shows as Fa0/1-48 then Gi0/1-4.) If I just simply do this, there's no issue: Fa0/[1-48] Gi1/[1-4] But doing that doesn't match the switch. It also appears that there is no issue actually adding the interfaces and they are there in the database correctly, I assume, but just not shown properly. ps RIP issue title, I have no idea how to condense that down further.
adam added the status: duplicate label 2025-12-29 16:23:50 +01:00
adam closed this issue 2025-12-29 16:23:50 +01:00
adam commented 2025-12-29 16:23:50 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@zevlag commented on GitHub (Jan 6, 2017):

I think this is a duplicate of #778 and #284

@zevlag commented on GitHub (Jan 6, 2017): I think this is a duplicate of #778 and #284
adam commented 2025-12-29 16:23:51 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@x-radeon commented on GitHub (Jan 6, 2017):

Oh sorry, I swear I searched, but I left the filters to is:issue is:open, that's why I didn't see 778 and I must of just skipped over 284.

But yes, it is a duplicate of those.

@x-radeon commented on GitHub (Jan 6, 2017): Oh sorry, I swear I searched, but I left the filters to is:issue is:open, that's why I didn't see 778 and I must of just skipped over 284. But yes, it is a duplicate of those.
adam commented 2025-12-29 16:23:51 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Jan 6, 2017):

No worries; there are quite a few issues to dig through. I'm hoping to have #284 sorted prior by the 1.9.0 release.

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Jan 6, 2017): No worries; there are quite a few issues to dig through. I'm hoping to have #284 sorted prior by the 1.9.0 release.
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#612
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?