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

Cable still not tracing when creating frontports after connecting rearport #7254

New Issue
Closed
opened 2025-12-29 20:20:55 +01:00 by adam · 1 comment
adam commented 2025-12-29 20:20:55 +01:00
Owner
Copy Link

Originally created by @PaulR282 on GitHub (Nov 18, 2022).

Originally assigned to: @jeremystretch on GitHub.

NetBox version

v3.3.8

Python version

3.10

Steps to Reproduce

In addition to #10237. While experimenting I was able to reproduce the problem (in v3.3.8 and v3.4-beta1) and now know why you couldn't reproduce it. My steps to reproduce were wrong.

  1. Create 2 devices with interfaces (switches 1 and 2)
  2. Create 2 devices with no components (patchpanel 1 and 2)
  3. Create a rearport in both patchpanel
  4. Create a frontport in patchpanel 1 and map it to the rearport
  5. Connect the rearports
  6. Connect the only existing frontport to an interface of switch 1
    -> Through looking in the database I found out that now the first trace gets created (i->fp->rp->rp)
  7. Create a frontport on patchpanel 2 and map it to the rearport
  8. Connect this frontport to an interface of switch 2
    -> Now the Second trace gets created (i->fp->rp->rp->fp->i)

If you do it as I said in #10237, the trace gets created when the frontports are already mapped to the rearport, resulting in 2 complete paths and avoiding this bug.

Expected Behavior

When mapping the second frontport to a rearport the trace should get extended.

Observed Behavior

The first trace keeps link i->fp->rp->rp. This way the trace is only in one direction complete.

Originally created by @PaulR282 on GitHub (Nov 18, 2022). Originally assigned to: @jeremystretch on GitHub. ### NetBox version v3.3.8 ### Python version 3.10 ### Steps to Reproduce In addition to #10237. While experimenting I was able to reproduce the problem (in v3.3.8 and v3.4-beta1) and now know why you couldn't reproduce it. My steps to reproduce were wrong. 1. Create 2 devices with interfaces (switches 1 and 2) 2. Create 2 devices with no components (patchpanel 1 and 2) 3. Create a rearport in both patchpanel 4. Create a frontport in patchpanel 1 and map it to the rearport 5. Connect the rearports 6. Connect the only existing frontport to an interface of switch 1 -> Through looking in the database I found out that now the first trace gets created (i->fp->rp->rp) 7. Create a frontport on patchpanel 2 and map it to the rearport 8. Connect this frontport to an interface of switch 2 -> Now the Second trace gets created (i->fp->rp->rp->fp->i) If you do it as I said in #10237, the trace gets created when the frontports are already mapped to the rearport, resulting in 2 complete paths and avoiding this bug. ### Expected Behavior When mapping the second frontport to a rearport the trace should get extended. ### Observed Behavior The first trace keeps link i->fp->rp->rp. This way the trace is only in one direction complete.
adam added the type: bugstatus: accepted labels 2025-12-29 20:20:55 +01:00
adam closed this issue 2025-12-29 20:20:55 +01:00
adam commented 2025-12-29 20:20:55 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Nov 21, 2022):

Thanks for taking the time to track this down @PaulR282. I believe the root issue is that the incomplete cable path originating from the interface on switch1 is not being extended when the front port on patchpanel2 is created. This should be simple enough to fix by introducing a new signal handler specifically for front ports.

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Nov 21, 2022): Thanks for taking the time to track this down @PaulR282. I believe the root issue is that the incomplete cable path originating from the interface on switch1 is not being extended when the front port on patchpanel2 is created. This should be simple enough to fix by introducing a new signal handler specifically for front ports.
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#7254
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?