Skip to content

Update to match new Advanced Port Mappings#3999

Open
odiseo123 wants to merge 1 commit intonetbox-community:masterfrom
odiseo123:patch-1
Open

Update to match new Advanced Port Mappings#3999
odiseo123 wants to merge 1 commit intonetbox-community:masterfrom
odiseo123:patch-1

Conversation

@odiseo123
Copy link
Copy Markdown

Old port mappings syntax no longer working after v4.5.2 (2026-02-03) update.

Refer to netbox-community/netbox#20564, https://netboxlabs.com/docs/netbox/release-notes/version-4.5#advanced-port-mappings-20564 and netbox-community/netbox#21539

All credits to @arthanson

@odiseo123
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Author

The units test fails as it seems to also be following the old port mapping syntax which requires a "rear_port" property specified in each "front_port", instead of using the mappings.

FAILED tests/definitions_test.py::test_definitions[device-types/Generic/24-port-copper-patch-panel.yaml-schema0-M] - Failed: device-types/Generic/24-port-copper-patch-panel.yaml failed validation: 'rear_port' is a required property

I am not a full time programmer so I am not confident editing the unit tests. However, I can confirm that the modified device-type works correctly on dockerized Netbox v4.5.3

image

Maybe one of the maintainers could update the unit tests, while reviewing this PR. Otherwise, the solution to this issue is documented here: netbox-community/netbox#21539

@odiseo123 odiseo123 marked this pull request as ready for review March 8, 2026 22:32
@harryajc
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

harryajc commented Mar 9, 2026

@odiseo123 This change will require that the pre-commit scripts and schema is updated to support this change

@harryajc harryajc added the status: revisions needed This issue requires additional information to be actionable label Mar 10, 2026
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

status: revisions needed This issue requires additional information to be actionable

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants