Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

"Current Configuration" of /core/system/ does not take configuration file into account #16689

Closed
mrtn-r opened this issue Jun 21, 2024 · 4 comments · Fixed by #16749
Closed
Assignees
Labels
severity: medium Results in substantial degraded or broken functionality for specfic workflows status: accepted This issue has been accepted for implementation type: bug A confirmed report of unexpected behavior in the application

Comments

@mrtn-r
Copy link

mrtn-r commented Jun 21, 2024

Deployment Type

Self-hosted

NetBox Version

v4.0.5

Python Version

3.11

Steps to Reproduce

  1. Set up a netbox instance.
  2. Change some value via the configuration.py, e.g. the login banner

Expected Behavior

Expect the changes in the config file to affect the "Current Configuration" part of NETBOXURL/core/system/

Observed Behavior

Changes are not displayed and the default values are used.
However when creating a new config revision and changing exactly nothing, the config file is parsed

@mrtn-r mrtn-r added status: needs triage This issue is awaiting triage by a maintainer type: bug A confirmed report of unexpected behavior in the application labels Jun 21, 2024
@mrtn-r
Copy link
Author

mrtn-r commented Jun 21, 2024

Here's a video because maybe my wording isn't clear enough:

2024-06-22.00-16-41.mp4

@jeremystretch
Copy link
Member

Thank you for opening a bug report. I was unable to reproduce the reported behavior on NetBox v4.0.5. Please re-confirm the reported behavior on the current stable release and adjust your post above as necessary. Remember to provide detailed steps that someone else can follow using a clean installation of NetBox to reproduce the issue. Remember to include the steps taken to create any initial objects or other data.

@jeremystretch jeremystretch added status: revisions needed This issue requires additional information to be actionable and removed status: needs triage This issue is awaiting triage by a maintainer labels Jun 24, 2024
@azuercher
Copy link

Hello,
I think I may be seeing similar issue on 4.0.5. I upgraded from 3.7.1. I noticed that netbox is not using my local timezone so I was investigating the issue and it lead me to this report.

I checked configuration.py and it has the timezone set same as previous version (configuration.py was copied during upgrade). If I look at Admin > System is shows my system time is correct:
image

However when updating or editing an object the time displayed is UTC:

image

Additionally, I noticed my configuration.py has
PREFER_IPV4 = True

but in the Admin > System is shows off.
image

Thanks

@tobiasge
Copy link
Member

tobiasge commented Jun 27, 2024

I can see the same issue with our installation on v4.0.6. In my configuration.py I have set CHANGELOG_RETENTION = 0. When I navigate to /core/config-revisions/add/ The field for the changelog retention is correctly greyed out and the value is 0. Looking at /core/system/ the value is displayed as 90 (the default I think).
We don't have any ConfigRevisions in our database.

tobiasge added a commit to tobiasge/netbox that referenced this issue Jun 27, 2024
Loads the the current configuration if no ConfigRevisions are saved to
the database.
@jeremystretch jeremystretch added status: accepted This issue has been accepted for implementation severity: medium Results in substantial degraded or broken functionality for specfic workflows and removed status: revisions needed This issue requires additional information to be actionable labels Jun 30, 2024
jeremystretch pushed a commit that referenced this issue Jun 30, 2024
Loads the the current configuration if no ConfigRevisions are saved to
the database.
This issue was closed.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
severity: medium Results in substantial degraded or broken functionality for specfic workflows status: accepted This issue has been accepted for implementation type: bug A confirmed report of unexpected behavior in the application
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

4 participants