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

Multi-termination jumper deletion creates front port inconsistency #7601

New Issue
Closed
opened 2025-12-29 20:25:54 +01:00 by adam · 8 comments
adam commented 2025-12-29 20:25:54 +01:00
Owner
Copy Link

Originally created by @marcusyuri on GitHub (Feb 5, 2023).

NetBox version

v3.4.4

Python version

3.8

Steps to Reproduce

  1. Create 2 devices with interfaces, say for example Router1 and Router2 (can use for example the Juniper MX80 from netbox demo site)
  2. Create 4 devices with several front ports and one rear port, say for example PP01, PP02, PP03 and PP04 (can use for example Generic 48 Fiber Panel from netbox demo site)
  3. Connect PP01 rear port <-- --> PP02 rear port and PP03 rear port <-- --> PP04 rear port
  4. Connect Router1 interface with 2 PP01 front port and Router2 interface with 2 PP04 front port
    Trace from router 1
    Trace from router 2
  5. Connect front PP02 front port 1 <-- --> PP03 front port 1, and a second cable from PP02 front port 2 <-- --> PP03 front port 2

Jumper
7. Repeat the trace. Now you see 'split path'.
Splt path
8. Click on the first node. Now you can see an empty trace.
9.
Problem 1 - Empty split path trace
10. Delete the connections PP02 front port 1 <-- --> PP03 front port 1, and a second cable from PP02 front port 2 <-- --> PP03 front port
11. Repeat the trace from router1 interface
Problem 2 - Missing front port from cable tracing

Expected Behavior

Problem #1. We see split path between PP02 and PP03.
Problem #2. After deleting the cables between PP02 and PP03, and repeating the trace, the front ports disappears from the PP02 and PP03, and the split path message remains, even if the are no cables.

Observed Behavior

Problem #1 After create two jumpers from PP02 <--> PP03, the trace from Router1 interface should by complete to router 2 interface, since we make a multipath conection on each interface to the patch panels (use case: model a jumper from an optical interface using a duplex fiber cable - TX and RX), and also make two discrete single fiber jumpers between PP02 and PP03.
Problem #2 After we delete the two discrete single fiber jumpers between PP02 and PP03, the trace starting from router interface should be exact the same as before the creating of the jumper, showing the ports 1 and 2, without any split path message.
Problem 1 - Empty split path trace
Problem 2 - Missing front port from cable tracing

Originally created by @marcusyuri on GitHub (Feb 5, 2023). ### NetBox version v3.4.4 ### Python version 3.8 ### Steps to Reproduce 1. Create 2 devices with interfaces, say for example Router1 and Router2 (can use for example the Juniper MX80 from netbox demo site) 2. Create 4 devices with several front ports and one rear port, say for example PP01, PP02, PP03 and PP04 (can use for example Generic 48 Fiber Panel from netbox demo site) 3. Connect PP01 rear port <-- --> PP02 rear port and PP03 rear port <-- --> PP04 rear port 4. Connect Router1 interface with 2 PP01 front port and Router2 interface with 2 PP04 front port ![Trace from router 1](https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/54281804/216821384-ebcb9afb-0457-4dc6-b8c6-91fa17bfdf3b.png) ![Trace from router 2](https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/54281804/216821387-d734375f-28b7-4f6c-977e-3a98f380222d.png) 5. Connect front PP02 front port 1 <-- --> PP03 front port 1, and a second cable from PP02 front port 2 <-- --> PP03 front port 2 6. ![Jumper](https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/54281804/216821767-951ea5df-2bb2-4b5f-82fd-40d7315110be.png) 7. Repeat the trace. Now you see 'split path'. ![Splt path](https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/54281804/216821909-038ff6fd-8714-467b-97a3-379219cbab62.png) 8. Click on the first node. Now you can see an empty trace. 9. ![Problem 1 - Empty split path trace](https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/54281804/216822041-4695c801-eded-45be-b9e2-e8c28dd2b869.png) 10. Delete the connections PP02 front port 1 <-- --> PP03 front port 1, and a second cable from PP02 front port 2 <-- --> PP03 front port 11. Repeat the trace from router1 interface ![Problem 2 - Missing front port from cable tracing](https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/54281804/216822190-1d026294-a884-420e-bdaf-a2a4f4ebf1ac.png) ### Expected Behavior Problem #1. We see split path between PP02 and PP03. Problem #2. After deleting the cables between PP02 and PP03, and repeating the trace, the front ports disappears from the PP02 and PP03, and the split path message remains, even if the are no cables. ### Observed Behavior Problem #1 After create two jumpers from PP02 <--> PP03, the trace from Router1 interface should by complete to router 2 interface, since we make a multipath conection on each interface to the patch panels (use case: model a jumper from an optical interface using a duplex fiber cable - TX and RX), and also make two discrete single fiber jumpers between PP02 and PP03. Problem #2 After we delete the two discrete single fiber jumpers between PP02 and PP03, the trace starting from router interface should be exact the same as before the creating of the jumper, showing the ports 1 and 2, without any split path message. ![Problem 1 - Empty split path trace](https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/54281804/216823696-d4846888-b352-4e71-95cb-4687554c123f.png) ![Problem 2 - Missing front port from cable tracing](https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/54281804/216823699-aa380ff7-0d1d-421f-934d-3b22ad9f7299.png)
adam added the type: bugstatus: under reviewtopic: cabling labels 2025-12-29 20:25:54 +01:00
adam closed this issue 2025-12-29 20:25:54 +01:00
adam commented 2025-12-29 20:25:55 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@dboissat commented on GitHub (Feb 8, 2023):

Hi,

I currently working on my Netbox to modify many paths with the point-multipoint cables and during my first tests, I observed a similar issue.
You can't trace a path if somewhere you have two different cables.
You need to create a multipoint-multipoint cable between your PP02 and PP03: 2 front ports to 2 front ports.

Please note, after creating this multipoint-multipoint cable, an error "path split" is possible.
But I found a tip to fix the issue on my side. I selected the cable "rear port" or "rear splice" and I changed his status: from "connected" to "planned" and to "connected" again.

On my side, in all cases, the path is correctly working after that.

For example, in my case, I needed to change the state of cables 5132 and 5109 and the path will be fixed correctly.
image

@dboissat commented on GitHub (Feb 8, 2023): Hi, I currently working on my Netbox to modify many paths with the point-multipoint cables and during my first tests, I observed a similar issue. You can't trace a path if somewhere you have two different cables. You need to create a multipoint-multipoint cable between your PP02 and PP03: 2 front ports to 2 front ports. Please note, after creating this multipoint-multipoint cable, an error "path split" is possible. But I found a tip to fix the issue on my side. I selected the cable "rear port" or "rear splice" and I changed his status: from "connected" to "planned" and to "connected" again. On my side, in all cases, the path is correctly working after that. For example, in my case, I needed to change the state of cables 5132 and 5109 and the path will be fixed correctly. ![image](https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/124785245/217520318-da73759a-5278-4d43-8196-eb50b093db02.png)
adam commented 2025-12-29 20:25:55 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@marcusyuri commented on GitHub (Feb 10, 2023):

I make some additional testing, and found another workaround for the problem #1, but the bug remains for the problem #2.

The workaround, in my example, is to use a double termination cable between PP02 front ports 1 and 2, and PP03 front ports 1 and 2, as show below - Cable #134:

Duplex cable

But the problem #2 remains - if I create two separates cables from PP02 front port 1 <-- --> PP3 front port 1 and PP02 front port 2 <-- --> PP3 front port 2, as see in below manually editted diagram:

Expected Cable Trace

This is the expected cable trace, but instead we get a split path. The real problem is that even if we delete the two separates cables, and recreate the connection using a duplex cable, and change back and forth the status from connect to planned and vice-versa, we cannot get the trace complete, as the first picture on this post. It appears that the deletion of the simplex cable breaks (or delete) something else, and we cannot go back to the previous netbox database state, before we create these two cables.

@marcusyuri commented on GitHub (Feb 10, 2023): I make some additional testing, and found another workaround for the problem #1, but the bug remains for the problem #2. The workaround, in my example, is to use a double termination cable between PP02 front ports 1 and 2, and PP03 front ports 1 and 2, as show below - Cable #134: ![Duplex cable](https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/54281804/218092441-9c0da25d-d79c-4170-ba7b-31377e4400fd.svg) But the problem #2 remains - if I create two separates cables from PP02 front port 1 <-- --> PP3 front port 1 and PP02 front port 2 <-- --> PP3 front port 2, as see in below manually editted diagram: ![Expected Cable Trace](https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/54281804/218093540-a5909dac-5753-43d1-91ad-76311754e046.png) This is the expected cable trace, but instead we get a split path. The real problem is that even if we delete the two separates cables, and recreate the connection using a duplex cable, and change back and forth the status from connect to planned and vice-versa, we cannot get the trace complete, as the first picture on this post. It appears that the deletion of the simplex cable breaks (or delete) something else, and we cannot go back to the previous netbox database state, before we create these two cables.
adam commented 2025-12-29 20:25:55 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jaylik commented on GitHub (Mar 6, 2023):

@jeremystretch - Would it be possible to fix this bug anytime soon? This is causing major headache with fiber joint enclosures modeled with 1:1 cables between different fibers.

Edit: Seems like this is not supported https://github.com/netbox-community/netbox/issues/10355 - even this scenario is very comment in most networks.

@jaylik commented on GitHub (Mar 6, 2023): @jeremystretch - Would it be possible to fix this bug anytime soon? This is causing major headache with fiber joint enclosures modeled with 1:1 cables between different fibers. Edit: Seems like this is not supported https://github.com/netbox-community/netbox/issues/10355 - even this scenario is very comment in most networks.
adam commented 2025-12-29 20:25:56 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@marcusyuri commented on GitHub (Mar 6, 2023):

I understand that the problem #1 is not supported (#10355), but the problem #2 remains - the front ports disappears if you delete the cable...

@marcusyuri commented on GitHub (Mar 6, 2023): I understand that the problem #1 is not supported (#10355), but the problem #2 remains - the front ports disappears if you delete the cable...
adam commented 2025-12-29 20:25:56 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@github-actions[bot] commented on GitHub (Jun 5, 2023):

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 (Jun 5, 2023): 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 20:25:56 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Sep 21, 2023):

Marking this as blocked by #11079 for now. We can re-evaluate once #13337 has been merged.

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Sep 21, 2023): Marking this as blocked by #11079 for now. We can re-evaluate once #13337 has been merged.
adam commented 2025-12-29 20:25:56 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Sep 26, 2023):

Confirmed that this has been addressed by PR #13337 as the fix for #11079, and will be fixed in v3.6.3.

screenshot

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Sep 26, 2023): Confirmed that this has been addressed by PR #13337 as the fix for #11079, and will be fixed in v3.6.3. ![screenshot](https://github.com/netbox-community/netbox/assets/13487278/813b549d-f2f7-4dc3-b05c-f35faf88d08a)
adam commented 2025-12-29 20:25:56 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@marcusyuri commented on GitHub (Sep 27, 2023):

Congratulations, Jeremy and all Netbox Team! It is working flawless. Also confirmed that the port inconsistency after delete was fixed, as we can see in the following picture - Ports 1 and 2 of PP02 now apears correctly after deleting the cable.

Fixed Port Inconsistency After Delete

Thanks for the fix!

@marcusyuri commented on GitHub (Sep 27, 2023): Congratulations, Jeremy and all Netbox Team! It is working flawless. Also confirmed that the port inconsistency after delete was fixed, as we can see in the following picture - Ports 1 and 2 of PP02 now apears correctly after deleting the cable. ![Fixed Port Inconsistency After Delete](https://github.com/netbox-community/netbox/assets/54281804/f6ae4237-00e9-43d3-8b3e-4bca653b708a) Thanks for the fix!
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#7601
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?