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

Port listing on cable connection #8295

New Issue
Closed
opened 2025-12-29 20:35:00 +01:00 by adam · 4 comments
adam commented 2025-12-29 20:35:00 +01:00
Owner
Copy Link

Originally created by @deku-m on GitHub (Jul 5, 2023).

NetBox version

v3.5.4

Python version

3.10.6

Steps to Reproduce

Steps:

  • Use device type C9200L-48P-4X from library for example and create a device named ITA-LN-ASW03-1, ITA-LN-ASW03-2
    See screenshots from ITA-LN-ASW03-1, ITA-LN-ASW03-2 no double stackports under their interfaces
    capture-device-0-1
    capture-device-1-1
  • create virtual chassis ITA-LN-ASW03
  • create members under it (ITA-LN-ASW03-1, ITA-LN-ASW03-2)
  • create a stack cable connection from a ITA-LN-ASW03-1 to ITA-LN-ASW03-2 (one member of virtual chassis).
    As seen in screenshot.
  • check the interface and select interface. You can see extra stackports which come from the member devices their interfaces i think.
    Which shouldnt be there as they are physical devices.

As you can see the list has double entries when creating i think a virtual switch. but the physical part is still the same you need to know in the list when you have a device member of the virtual chassis and it is member 2. That you need to select the second stackport1/2 in the list (see example about stackport).

The overview of the list makes it unclear which one to select but the entry will change when selecting the wrong Stackport for example and save it. Then the cable connection values change to the selected one.

See below:
list-ports

Expected Behavior

Some sort of knowhow perhaps so that the list is not unclear or only the interfaces that are from the physical device itself.
Not a mix with the other members.
As it looks like it is using the virtual chassis instead of physical device and interfaces itself.

Observed Behavior

list-ports-1

Originally created by @deku-m on GitHub (Jul 5, 2023). ### NetBox version v3.5.4 ### Python version 3.10.6 ### Steps to Reproduce Steps: - Use device type C9200L-48P-4X from library for example and create a device named ITA-LN-ASW03-1, ITA-LN-ASW03-2 See screenshots from ITA-LN-ASW03-1, ITA-LN-ASW03-2 no double stackports under their interfaces ![capture-device-0-1](https://github.com/netbox-community/netbox/assets/37069737/975455eb-8858-42c5-8ffc-bc14609d0672) ![capture-device-1-1](https://github.com/netbox-community/netbox/assets/37069737/ef543df3-f69e-4e9f-9a40-ad687d596119) - create virtual chassis ITA-LN-ASW03 - create members under it (ITA-LN-ASW03-1, ITA-LN-ASW03-2) - create a stack cable connection from a ITA-LN-ASW03-1 to ITA-LN-ASW03-2 (one member of virtual chassis). As seen in screenshot. - check the interface and select interface. You can see extra stackports which come from the member devices their interfaces i think. Which shouldnt be there as they are physical devices. As you can see the list has double entries when creating i think a virtual switch. but the physical part is still the same you need to know in the list when you have a device member of the virtual chassis and it is member 2. That you need to select the second stackport1/2 in the list (see example about stackport). The overview of the list makes it unclear which one to select but the entry will change when selecting the wrong Stackport for example and save it. Then the cable connection values change to the selected one. See below: ![list-ports](https://github.com/netbox-community/netbox/assets/37069737/79ee8a09-be0a-4d0c-aefd-82320a5704c7) ### Expected Behavior Some sort of knowhow perhaps so that the list is not unclear or only the interfaces that are from the physical device itself. Not a mix with the other members. As it looks like it is using the virtual chassis instead of physical device and interfaces itself. ### Observed Behavior ![list-ports-1](https://github.com/netbox-community/netbox/assets/37069737/75716370-2e83-4cc1-b705-b4103aa31bf1)
adam added the type: bugstatus: duplicate labels 2025-12-29 20:35:00 +01:00
adam closed this issue 2025-12-29 20:35:00 +01:00
adam commented 2025-12-29 20:35:01 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jsenecal commented on GitHub (Jul 5, 2023):

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.

@jsenecal commented on GitHub (Jul 5, 2023): 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 20:35:01 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@deku-m commented on GitHub (Jul 5, 2023):

I extended the method i used that showed me the "bug"

@deku-m commented on GitHub (Jul 5, 2023): I extended the method i used that showed me the "bug"
adam commented 2025-12-29 20:35:01 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@DanSheps commented on GitHub (Jul 5, 2023):

This is captured under #11478 however I would like to point out, your second chassis ports should be 2/1 and 2/2 not 1/1 and 1/2, likewise your third switch stack ports should be 3/1 and 3/2.

@DanSheps commented on GitHub (Jul 5, 2023): This is captured under #11478 however I would like to point out, your second chassis ports should be 2/1 and 2/2 not 1/1 and 1/2, likewise your third switch stack ports should be 3/1 and 3/2.
adam commented 2025-12-29 20:35:01 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@DanSheps commented on GitHub (Jul 5, 2023):

Duplicate of #11478

@DanSheps commented on GitHub (Jul 5, 2023): Duplicate of #11478
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 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#8295
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?