Interface list issue

[tomasaberg]

Hi!

I'm trying to add a Cisco ASR1000 device with six SFP Gigabit Interfaces, added like so: GigabitEthernet0/0/[0-5]

This device also have two TenGigabyteEthernet interfaces. When I try to add them as TenGigabitEthernet0/0/[0-1] the TenGigabitEthernet interfaces aren't listed, only the GigabitEthernet interfaces. However, if i remove the GigabitEthernet0/0/0 and GigabitEthernet0/0/1, they'll show up.

To reproduce:

1. Create a device
2. Add interface GigabitEthernet0/0/[0-5]
3. Add interface TenGigabitEthernet0/0/[0-1]
4. Look at the list

Netbox version: v1.8.0

Interfaces in ASR1000

interface TenGigabitEthernet0/0/0
interface TenGigabitEthernet0/0/1
interface GigabitEthernet0/0/0
interface GigabitEthernet0/0/1
interface GigabitEthernet0/0/2
interface GigabitEthernet0/0/3
interface GigabitEthernet0/0/4
interface GigabitEthernet0/0/5

Since I'm new to Netbox, I wonder if I'm doing something wrong or if this is a bug

[tomasaberg]

Using shortnames works, but the sorting is a bit off.
te0/0/0 SFP+ (10GE)
gi0/0/0 SFP (1GE)
te0/0/1 SFP+ (10GE)
gi0/0/1 SFP (1GE)
gi0/0/2 SFP (1GE)
gi0/0/3 SFP (1GE)
gi0/0/4 SFP (1GE)
gi0/0/5 SFP (1GE)

[jeremystretch]

I'm not able to replicate this on v1.8.1. I created the seven interfaces using the two ranges you specified:

The ordering is a separate issue that will be addressed in #284. Currently, interfaces are ordered by their slot and position IDs, rather than by name. This results in unnatural ordering for some platforms.

[jeremystretch]

My mistake, I was trying this on an instantiated device. The issue you're seeing is assigning interface templates to a device type. Let me poke at it some more.

[jeremystretch]

It looks like django-tables2 is doing something funny with the queryset. I can dump the list of InterfaceTemplate objects from the view and everything looks normal, but the table is doing something strange to our custom-ordered queryset. Interestingly, the table renders perfectly fine if I cast the queryset to a list before feeding it to the table.

At the risk of appearing cowardly, I think it makes sense to forego tables for DeviceType components altogether anyway, as we do for Device components (each components table is an included template).

[jeremystretch]

Turns out this was easy enough to fix by explicitly sorting on the name field after the slot/position tuple to handle duplicates.

[tomasaberg]

Wow, impressive response.
Thank you!