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

Bug in related path table on trace view #7032

New Issue
Closed
opened 2025-12-29 19:48:06 +01:00 by adam · 10 comments
adam commented 2025-12-29 19:48:06 +01:00
Owner
Copy Link

Originally created by @dssdss on GitHub (Sep 27, 2022).

NetBox version

v3.3.5

Python version

3.9.2

Steps to Reproduce

1. Reproduce network scheme like below
download

Add 3 device type

  1. Switch 24 interfaces, name ge1 - ge24 ; type 100BASE-TX (10/100ME)
  2. Media Convertor: 1 Rear Ports, name fc[1] TX/RX, type SC -- 1 Front Ports name ge1, type 8P8C
  3. Patch panel 16 port Fiber SC: 1 Rear Ports, Positions 16, name R2-3, type SC -- 16 Front Ports, name F1-2 - F16-2, type SC

Add 6 device:

  1. 24 Interfaces Switch, name angw.comita.lan
  2. 24 Interfaces Switch, name topgw.comita.lan
  3. Media Convertor, name mc_an_201r_1
  4. Media Convertor, name mc_bur_8r_3
  5. Patch panel 16 port Fiber SC, name oc_an_201r_3
  6. Patch panel 16 port Fiber SC, name oc_an_1r_1

Make connections:

  1. oc_an_201r_3, Rear Ports R2-3 --- oc_an_1r_1, Rear Ports R2-3 ; type Singlemode Fiber (OS2)
  2. angw.comita.lan, interface ge23 --- mc_an_201r_1, Front Ports ge1 ; type CAT5e
  3. mc_an_201r_1, Rear Ports fc[1] TX/RX Split Patching --- oc_an_201r_3, Front Ports F2-2, F3-2 ; type Singlemode Fiber
  4. mc_bur_8r_3, Rear Ports fc[1] TX/RX Split Patching --- oc_an_1r_1, Front Ports F2-2, F3-2 ; type Singlemode Fiber
  5. topgw.comita.lan, interface ge17 --- mc_bur_8r_3, Front Ports ge1 ; type CAT5e

2. Press trace button on network interface ge23 on Switch angw.comita.lan - we got Related Paths table empty

Expected Behavior

But if we press Trace button not on interface but on any port (front, rear) - Related Paths table contain information.

For example I press Trace on device mc_an_201r_1 Front Port ge1
image

Observed Behavior

We see, that Related Paths table is empty if we press Trace button on the switch angw.comita.lan interface ge23

image

Originally created by @dssdss on GitHub (Sep 27, 2022). ### NetBox version v3.3.5 ### Python version 3.9.2 ### Steps to Reproduce **1. Reproduce network scheme like below** ![download](https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/14805815/193833862-d240e184-e4c8-43e6-91ee-8fadae502bf3.svg) Add 3 device type 1) Switch 24 interfaces, name ge1 - ge24 ; type 100BASE-TX (10/100ME) 2) Media Convertor: 1 Rear Ports, name fc[1] TX/RX, type SC -- 1 Front Ports name ge1, type 8P8C 3) Patch panel 16 port Fiber SC: 1 Rear Ports, Positions 16, name R2-3, type SC -- 16 Front Ports, name F1-2 - F16-2, type SC Add 6 device: 1) 24 Interfaces Switch, name angw.comita.lan 2) 24 Interfaces Switch, name topgw.comita.lan 3) Media Convertor, name mc_an_201r_1 4) Media Convertor, name mc_bur_8r_3 5) Patch panel 16 port Fiber SC, name oc_an_201r_3 6) Patch panel 16 port Fiber SC, name oc_an_1r_1 Make connections: 1) oc_an_201r_3, Rear Ports R2-3 --- oc_an_1r_1, Rear Ports R2-3 ; type Singlemode Fiber (OS2) 2) angw.comita.lan, interface ge23 --- mc_an_201r_1, Front Ports ge1 ; type CAT5e 3) mc_an_201r_1, Rear Ports fc[1] TX/RX Split Patching --- oc_an_201r_3, Front Ports F2-2, F3-2 ; type Singlemode Fiber 4) mc_bur_8r_3, Rear Ports fc[1] TX/RX Split Patching --- oc_an_1r_1, Front Ports F2-2, F3-2 ; type Singlemode Fiber 5) topgw.comita.lan, interface ge17 --- mc_bur_8r_3, Front Ports ge1 ; type CAT5e **2. Press trace button on network interface ge23 on Switch angw.comita.lan - we got Related Paths table empty** ### Expected Behavior But if we press Trace button not on interface but on any port (front, rear) - Related Paths table contain information. For example I press Trace on device mc_an_201r_1 Front Port ge1 ![image](https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/14805815/192551517-38b70186-a28e-4132-8837-98af2d0a549b.png) ### Observed Behavior We see, that Related Paths table is empty if we press Trace button on the switch angw.comita.lan interface ge23 ![image](https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/14805815/192549724-63c1cad1-e1f3-40aa-9dc5-f4e15f9a04f9.png)
adam added the type: bugstatus: under reviewtopic: cabling labels 2025-12-29 19:48:06 +01:00
adam closed this issue 2025-12-29 19:48:06 +01:00
adam commented 2025-12-29 19:48:06 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@dssdss commented on GitHub (Sep 27, 2022):

And it would be just wonderful if you add DEVICE NAME to the Related Paths table

@dssdss commented on GitHub (Sep 27, 2022): And it would be just wonderful if you add DEVICE NAME to the Related Paths table
adam commented 2025-12-29 19:48:07 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Sep 28, 2022):

Thank you for opening a bug report. Unfortunately, the information you have provided is not sufficient for someone else to attempt to reproduce the reported behavior. Remember, each bug report must include detailed steps that someone else can follow on a clean, empty NetBox installation to reproduce the exact problem you're experiencing. These instructions should include the creation of any involved objects, any configuration changes, and complete accounting of the actions being taken. Also be sure that your report does not reference data on the public NetBox demo, as that is subject to change at any time by an outside party and cannot be relied upon for bug reports.

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Sep 28, 2022): Thank you for opening a bug report. Unfortunately, the information you have provided is not sufficient for someone else to attempt to reproduce the reported behavior. Remember, each bug report must include detailed steps that someone else can follow on a clean, empty NetBox installation to reproduce the exact problem you're experiencing. These instructions should include the creation of any involved objects, any configuration changes, and complete accounting of the actions being taken. Also be sure that your report does not reference data on the public NetBox demo, as that is subject to change at any time by an outside party and cannot be relied upon for bug reports.
adam commented 2025-12-29 19:48:07 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@dssdss commented on GitHub (Sep 29, 2022):

Unfortunately, the information you have provided is not sufficient...

We added more detailed steps to reproduce. Did we write clearly now?
It would be much better if you had a separate private instance, where we could reproduce bugs.

@dssdss commented on GitHub (Sep 29, 2022): > Unfortunately, the information you have provided is not sufficient... We added more detailed steps to reproduce. Did we write clearly now? It would be much better if you had a separate private instance, where we could reproduce bugs.
adam commented 2025-12-29 19:48:07 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@dssdss commented on GitHub (Sep 29, 2022):

Also, we can see the same problem between 2 Cisco devices on demo: https://demo.netbox.dev/dcim/interfaces/170/trace/

@dssdss commented on GitHub (Sep 29, 2022): Also, we can see the same problem between 2 Cisco devices on demo: https://demo.netbox.dev/dcim/interfaces/170/trace/
adam commented 2025-12-29 19:48:07 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Oct 3, 2022):

We added more detailed steps to reproduce. Did we write clearly now?

I'm sorry, but no, I still don't follow what you're expecting to happen here. As far as I can tell, everything is working as expected: The terminating interface will only have one path traversing it, so you should not expect to see any related paths listed.

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Oct 3, 2022): > We added more detailed steps to reproduce. Did we write clearly now? I'm sorry, but no, I still don't follow what you're expecting to happen here. As far as I can tell, everything is working as expected: The terminating interface will only have one path traversing it, so you should not expect to see any related paths listed.
adam commented 2025-12-29 19:48:07 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@dssdss commented on GitHub (Oct 4, 2022):

I apologize, I completely confused you, because of my first simple scheme.
Now, I replaced it with the original Cable trace from my Netbox – see my fist long image under “1. Reproduce network scheme like below” on the my first post https://github.com/netbox-community/netbox/issues/10485#issue-1387847553 .

You can see 2 switches:

  • on the top - angw.comita.lan interface ge23
  • on the bottom - topgw.comita.lan interface ge17.

Only 2 devices have interfaces – switches. Other patch panels and mediaconverters (mc_an_201r_1, mc_bur_8r_3) have only ports (front and rear).

==================================================================
So, case #1 – start tracing from port ge1 on mc_an_201r_1:

  1. Click on port ge1 mc_an_201r_1 (here and below images are сut in height, because of large picture height):
    image

  2. Click Trace button on front port ge1:
    image

We've got Cable full cable trace but with duplicated ports on Related Paths table.
I think that the table should have only 2 lines with interfaces ge23 and ge17 , or am I mistaken (image was cut, because its very high)?
image

==================================================================
So, case #2 – start tracing from interface ge23 on switch angw.comita.lan:

  1. Click on interface ge23 switch angw.comita.lan:
    image

  2. Click Trace button on interface ge23 :
    image

And we get empty Related Patchs table!
But it must contain 2 lines with interfaces ge23 and ge17! (images are сut in height, because of large picture height)
image

@dssdss commented on GitHub (Oct 4, 2022): I apologize, I completely confused you, because of my first simple scheme. Now, I replaced it with the original Cable trace from my Netbox – see my fist long image under “1. Reproduce network scheme like below” on the my first post https://github.com/netbox-community/netbox/issues/10485#issue-1387847553 . You can see 2 switches: - on the top - angw.comita.lan interface ge23 - on the bottom - topgw.comita.lan interface ge17. Only 2 devices have interfaces – switches. Other patch panels and mediaconverters (mc_an_201r_1, mc_bur_8r_3) have only ports (front and rear). ================================================================== **So, case #1 – start tracing from port ge1 on mc_an_201r_1:** 1) Click on port ge1 mc_an_201r_1 (here and below images are сut in height, because of large picture height): ![image](https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/14805815/193841651-75f9a9d4-deaf-4dd3-8e54-35a9367310b4.png) 2) Click Trace button on front port ge1: ![image](https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/14805815/193842681-9090eb79-c391-4f70-bd30-877f466e4c78.png) **We've got Cable full cable trace but with duplicated ports on Related Paths table. I think that the table should have only 2 lines with interfaces ge23 and ge17 , or am I mistaken (image was cut, because its very high)?** ![image](https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/14805815/193843169-a9c3bbd6-e051-462c-9ab3-49a6723f3a6c.png) ================================================================== **So, case #2 – start tracing from interface ge23 on switch angw.comita.lan:** 1) Click on interface ge23 switch angw.comita.lan: ![image](https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/14805815/193844298-b0c584c0-5c44-4dcb-bf24-e6283ef49adf.png) 2) Click Trace button on interface ge23 : ![image](https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/14805815/193844790-3d9fddae-4259-4ead-9ea7-0214da9f6255.png) **And we get empty Related Patchs table! But it must contain 2 lines with interfaces ge23 and ge17! (images are сut in height, because of large picture height)** ![image](https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/14805815/193846537-a0f73c72-6f06-432d-93d4-9fb8c9267868.png)
adam commented 2025-12-29 19:48:08 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@dssdss commented on GitHub (Oct 10, 2022):

I'm sorry, but no, I still don't follow what you're expecting to happen here.

Jeremy, I changed the main tracer scheme and described all the actions and the result with the pictures in detail with the pictures

@dssdss commented on GitHub (Oct 10, 2022): > I'm sorry, but no, I still don't follow what you're expecting to happen here. Jeremy, I changed the main tracer scheme and described all the actions and the result with the pictures in detail with the pictures
adam commented 2025-12-29 19:48:08 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@dssdss commented on GitHub (Oct 12, 2022):

As far as I can tell, everything is working as expected: The terminating interface will only have one path traversing it, so you should not expect to see any related paths listed.

We updated our Netbox to v3.3.5 - case #1 you fixed, but case #2 - still no. Related paths table still empty.

@dssdss commented on GitHub (Oct 12, 2022): > As far as I can tell, everything is working as expected: The terminating interface will only have one path traversing it, so you should not expect to see any related paths listed. We updated our Netbox to v3.3.5 - case #1 you fixed, but case #2 - still no. Related paths table still empty.
adam commented 2025-12-29 19:48:08 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@github-actions[bot] commented on GitHub (Dec 17, 2022):

This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed if no further activity occurs. NetBox is governed by a small group of core maintainers which means not all opened issues may receive direct feedback. Do not attempt to circumvent this process by "bumping" the issue; doing so will result in its immediate closure and you may be barred from participating in any future discussions. Please see our contributing guide.

@github-actions[bot] commented on GitHub (Dec 17, 2022): This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed if no further activity occurs. NetBox is governed by a small group of core maintainers which means not all opened issues may receive direct feedback. **Do not** attempt to circumvent this process by "bumping" the issue; doing so will result in its immediate closure and you may be barred from participating in any future discussions. Please see our [contributing guide](https://github.com/netbox-community/netbox/blob/develop/CONTRIBUTING.md).
adam commented 2025-12-29 19:48:08 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Jan 11, 2023):

I'm afraid that after several attempts I'm still not able to follow what's happening here, and I believe this is part of the problem:

case #1 you fixed, but case #2 - still no

There should never be more than one specific set of reproduction steps in a single bug report. Additionally, several potentially relevant cabling bugs have been fixed since this issue was last updated, so it's possible this is no longer needed.

Let's do this: I'm going to close out this issue as I expect attempting to clarify the above comments is only going to result in more confusion. I expect to release NetBox v3.4.3 within the next week or so, which will include all the more recent bug fixes. Once that release is available, please check whether you're able to reproduce your issue. If so, you're welcome to submit a new bug report with a new, clarified set of reproduction instructions pertinent to the specific behavior you'd like to address. Then we can work forward from there with a clean slate. Thanks!

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Jan 11, 2023): I'm afraid that after several attempts I'm still not able to follow what's happening here, and I believe this is part of the problem: > case #1 you fixed, but case #2 - still no There should never be more than one specific set of reproduction steps in a single bug report. Additionally, several potentially relevant cabling bugs have been fixed since this issue was last updated, so it's possible this is no longer needed. Let's do this: I'm going to close out this issue as I expect attempting to clarify the above comments is only going to result in more confusion. I expect to release NetBox v3.4.3 within the next week or so, which will include all the more recent bug fixes. Once that release is available, please check whether you're able to reproduce your issue. If so, you're welcome to submit a new bug report with a new, clarified set of reproduction instructions pertinent to the specific behavior you'd like to address. Then we can work forward from there with a clean slate. Thanks!
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: under review topic: cabling 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#7032
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?