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

Update Virtual chassis Member error #8308

New Issue
Closed
opened 2025-12-29 20:35:11 +01:00 by adam · 2 comments
adam commented 2025-12-29 20:35:11 +01:00
Owner
Copy Link

Originally created by @ThierryGUI on GitHub (Jul 7, 2023).

NetBox version

v3.5.4

Python version

3.11

Steps to Reproduce

Hi all,
Here is the situation I'am facing with Netbox 3.4.5 with a stack of switch.

1 - First tenant creation in a particular site / rack
2 - Second tenant creation in the same particular site / rack

3 - First device creation with name (switch-test) recorded in the first tenant.
4 - Second device creation with same name (switch-test) recorded in the second tenant.

At This step, I've in the same rack, two differents devices in two different tenant, devices with same name as they are part of stack.

5 - Virtual chassis creation in the concerned rack.
6 - Adding in the Virtual Chassis, 2 devices (switch-test) - with same name as they are both members of virtual chassis.

At this step, I've a stack of 2 switchs (this same name) in a particular rack.

image

image

Expected Behavior

When I want to connect a particular interface of first Switch (StackWise480 1) (using CONNECT Button of interface page) to a particular interface of second switch (StackWise480 2), I'd like a single connection appear :

First switch interface StackWise480 1 (object id : 1216) CONNECTED TO second Switch interface StackWise480 2 (object id : 1217)

Observed Behavior

First switch interface StackWise480 1 (object id : 1216) IS CONNECTED TO first Switch interface StackWise480 2 (object id : 1216) - same switch

Is there something wrong this Netbox, or am I doing the wrong way ?

Any help would be appreciated !

Regards

### Tasks
Originally created by @ThierryGUI on GitHub (Jul 7, 2023). ### NetBox version v3.5.4 ### Python version 3.11 ### Steps to Reproduce Hi all, Here is the situation I'am facing with Netbox 3.4.5 with a stack of switch. 1 - First tenant creation in a particular site / rack 2 - Second tenant creation in the same particular site / rack 3 - First device creation with name (switch-test) recorded in the first tenant. 4 - Second device creation with same name (switch-test) recorded in the second tenant. At This step, I've in the same rack, two differents devices in two different tenant, devices with same name as they are part of stack. 5 - Virtual chassis creation in the concerned rack. 6 - Adding in the Virtual Chassis, 2 devices (switch-test) - with same name as they are both members of virtual chassis. At this step, I've a stack of 2 switchs (this same name) in a particular rack. ![image](https://github.com/netbox-community/netbox/assets/138896306/12957ad1-cedb-411f-9402-0def353bb894) ![image](https://github.com/netbox-community/netbox/assets/138896306/ed4ee469-a384-4edf-a8d0-770ad1ec7bfa) ### Expected Behavior When I want to connect a particular interface of first Switch (StackWise480 1) (using CONNECT Button of interface page) to a particular interface of second switch (StackWise480 2), I'd like a single connection appear : First switch interface StackWise480 1 (object id : 1216) CONNECTED TO second Switch interface StackWise480 2 (object id : 1217) ### Observed Behavior First switch interface StackWise480 1 (object id : 1216) IS CONNECTED TO first Switch interface StackWise480 2 (object id : 1216) - same switch Is there something wrong this Netbox, or am I doing the wrong way ? Any help would be appreciated ! Regards ```[tasklist] ### Tasks ```
adam added the type: bugstatus: revisions needed labels 2025-12-29 20:35:11 +01:00
adam closed this issue 2025-12-29 20:35:11 +01:00
adam commented 2025-12-29 20:35:12 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@kkthxbye-code commented on GitHub (Jul 7, 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.

@kkthxbye-code commented on GitHub (Jul 7, 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 20:35:12 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Jul 20, 2023):

This issue is being closed as no further information has been provided. If you would like to revisit this topic, please first modify your original post to include all the requested detail, and then ask that the issue be reopened.

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Jul 20, 2023): This issue is being closed as no further information has been provided. If you would like to revisit this topic, please first modify your original post to include all the requested detail, and then ask that the issue be reopened.
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: revisions needed 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#8308
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?