Skip to content
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • Unsolved
Collapse
Discussion Forum to share and further the development of home control and automation, independent of platforms.
  1. Home
  2. Software
  3. Multi-System Reactor
  4. [Solved] Group in Reset Reaction is being ignored
Access control - allowing anonymous user to dashboard
tunnusT
Using build 25328 and having the following users.yaml configuration: users: # This section defines your valid users. admin: ******* groups: # This section defines your user groups. Optionally, it defines application # and API access restrictions (ACLs) for the group. Users may belong to # more than one group. Again, no required or special groups here. admin_group: users: - admin applications: true # special form allows access to ALL applications guests: users: "*" applications: - dashboard api_acls: # This ACL allows users in the "admin" group to access the API - url: "/api" group: admin_group allow: true log: true # This ACL allows anyone/thing to access the /api/v1/alive API endpoint - url: "/api/v1/alive" allow: true session: timeout: 7200 # (seconds) rolling: true # activity extends timeout when true # If log_acls is true, the selected ACL for every API access is logged. log_acls: true # If debug_acls is true, even more information about ACL selection is logged. debug_acls: true My goal is to allow anonymous user to dashboard, but MSR is still asking for a password when trying to access that. Nothing in the logs related to dashboard access. Probably an error in the configuration, but help needed to find that. Tried to put url: "/dashboard" under api_acls, but that was a long shot and didn't work.
Multi-System Reactor
VEC Virtual Switch Auto Off
S
I use Virtual Entity Controller virtual switches which I turn on via webhooks from other applications. Once a switch triggers and turns on, I can then activate associated rules. I would like each virtual switch to automatically turn off after a configurable time (e.g., 5 seconds, 10 seconds). Is there a better way to achieve this auto-off behavior instead of creating a separate rule for each switch that uses the 'Condition must be sustained for' option to turn it off? With a large number of these switches (and the associated turn-off rules), I'm checking to see if there is a simpler approach.If not, could this be a feature request to add an auto-off timer directly to the virtual switches. Thanks Reactor (Multi-hub) latest-26011-c621bbc7 VirtualEntityController v25356 Synology Docker
Multi-System Reactor
Upcoming Storage Change -- Got Back-ups?
toggledbitsT
TL;DR: Format of data in storage directory will soon change. Make sure you are backing up the contents of that directory in its entirety, and you preserve your backups for an extended period, particularly the backup you take right before upgrading to the build containing this change (date of that is still to be determined, but soon). The old data format will remain readable (so you'll be able to read your pre-change backups) for the foreseeable future. In support of a number of other changes in the works, I have found it necessary to change the storage format for Reactor objects in storage at the physical level. Until now, plain, standard JSON has been used to store the data (everything under the storage directory). This has served well, but has a few limitations, including no real support for native JavaScript objects like Date, Map, Set, and others. It also is unable to store data that contains "loops" — objects that reference themselves in some way. I'm not sure exactly when, but in the not-too-distant future I will publish a build using the new data format. It will automatically convert existing JSON data to the new format. For the moment, it will save data in both the new format and the old JSON format, preferring the former when loading data from storage. I have been running my own home with this new format for several months, and have no issues with data loss or corruption. A few other things to know: If you are not already backing up your storage directory, you should be. At a minimum, back this directory up every time you make big changes to your Rules, Reactions, etc. Your existing JSON-format backups will continue to be readable for the long-term (years). The code that loads data from these files looks for the new file format first (which will have a .dval suffix), and if not found, will happily read (and convert) a same-basenamed .json file (i.e. it looks for ruleid.dval first, and if it doesn't find it, it tries to load ruleid.json). I'll publish detailed instructions for restoring from old backups when the build is posted (it's easy). The new .dval files are not directly human-readable or editable as easily as the old .json files. A new utility will be provided in the tools directory to convert .dval data to .json format, which you can then read or edit if you find that necessary. However, that may not work for all future data, as my intent is to make more native JavaScript objects directly storable, and many of those objects cannot be stored in JSON. You may need to modify your backup tools/scripts to pick up the new files: if you explicitly name .json files (rather than just specifying the entire storage directory) in your backup configuration, you will need to add .dval files to get a complete, accurate backup. I don't think this will be an issue for any of you; I imagine that you're all just backing up the entire contents of storage regardless of format/name, that is the safest (and IMO most correct) way to go (if that's not what you're doing, consider changing your approach). The current code stores the data in both the .dval form and the .json form to hedge against any real-world problems I don't encounter in my own use. Some future build will drop this redundancy (i.e. save only to .dval form). However, the read code for the .json form will remain in any case. This applies only to persistent storage that Reactor creates and controls under the storage tree. All other JSON data files (e.g. device data for Controllers) are unaffected by this change and will remain in that form. YAML files are also unaffected by this change. This thread is open for any questions or concerns.
Multi-System Reactor
Oddness in Copy/Move of Reactions
G
Topic thumbnail image
Multi-System Reactor
[Solved] function isRuleEnabled() issue
CrilleC
Topic thumbnail image
Multi-System Reactor
[Reactor] Problem with Global Reactions and groups
therealdbT
Topic thumbnail image
Multi-System Reactor
Possible feature request 2?
CatmanV2C
Just another thought. Adding devices from my Home Assistant / Zigbee2MQTT integration. Works perfectly but they always add as their IEEE address. Some of these devices have up to 10 entities associated, and the moment they are renamed to something sensible, each of those entities 'ceases to exist' in MSR. I like things tidy, and deleting each defunct entity needs 3 clicks. Any chance of a 'bulk delete' option? No biggy as I've pretty much finished my Z-wave migration and I don't expect to be adding more than 2 new Zigbee devices Cheers C
Multi-System Reactor
Reactor (Multi-System/Multi-Hub) Announcements
toggledbitsT
Build 21228 has been released. Docker images available from DockerHub as usual, and bare-metal packages here. Home Assistant up to version 2021.8.6 supported; the online version of the manual will now state the current supported versions; Fix an error in OWMWeatherController that could cause it to stop updating; Unify the approach to entity filtering on all hub interface classes (controllers); this works for device entities only; it may be extended to other entities later; Improve error detail in messages for EzloController during auth phase; Add isRuleSet() and isRuleEnabled() functions to expressions extensions; Implement set action for lock and passage capabilities (makes them more easily scriptable in some cases); Fix a place in the UI where 24-hour time was not being displayed.
Multi-System Reactor
Copying a global reaction
tunnusT
With build 25328, if you copy a global reaction, a new reaction does not appear in the UI unless you do a refresh. I recall this used to work without needing this page refresh? Anyway, only a minor nuisance.
Multi-System Reactor
[Reactor] Bug when sending MQTT boolean payloads
therealdbT
Topic thumbnail image
Multi-System Reactor
Difficulty defining repeating annual period
R
I have tried numerous ways to define a recurring annual period, for example from December 15 to January 15. No matter which method I try - after and before, between, after and/not after, Reactor reports "waiting for invalid date, invalid date. Some constructs also seem to cause Reactor to hang, timeout and restart. For example "before January 15 is evaluated as true, but reports "waiting for invalid date, invalid date". Does anyone have a tried and true method to define a recurring annual period? I think the "between" that I used successfully in the past may have broken with one of the updates.
Multi-System Reactor
Need help with sequence
T
Good evening all, For about the past week or so, I've been having problems with a specific rule in my home automation that controls when my home goes from an Away mode to Home mode. One of the conditions it checked for was my alarm panel, when it changed from Armed Away to Disarmed. There seems to have been a firmware update on the panel that added an intermittent step of "pending", and I can't say for certain it happens 100% of the time. Is there a way to write a condition that so it changes from one condition, to the next, and then another condition? As in, Home alarm changes from armed_away to pending to disarmed. Thanks.
Multi-System Reactor
Possible feature request?
CatmanV2C
No idea how easy this would be. During my migration away from Z-wave I've been replacing the Z-wave devices with Sonoff which has broken some of my automations. Any chance of a 'Test Reaction' function to call out which ones are broken because an entity no longer exists? Without actually running the reaction? Or does this exist already and I'm just not aware of how to do it? Obviously I can see entities that are no longer available, but not quite what I'm looking for. I guess it's something of an edge case so no huge issue. TIA! C
Multi-System Reactor
Logic Assistance: Exterior Lights on when Illuminance Below Threshold
PablaP
Topic thumbnail image
Multi-System Reactor
Time series documentation
tunnusT
Is the current manual (incl. examples) up to date with how retention value is handled in time series configuration? Referring to this post
Multi-System Reactor
MQTT templates for ZIgbee scene controller, or a better way?
CatmanV2C
Topic thumbnail image
Multi-System Reactor
Reset a delay
CatmanV2C
I'm sure this has been asked, and answered, but damned if I can figure it out Use case: I have a rear garden with lights. A door from the kitchen into the garden and a door from the garage. Currently if I open the kitchen door the lights come on (yay) and a 3 minute delay starts. After 3 minutes, no matter what else happens, the lights go off (Boo! But also yay!) What I would like is for the 3 minute delay until the lights go off to start from the latest door open event. That is, if I'm going from kitchen to garage, and back again, the lights stay on until there's three minutes of no activity. I've tried 'hacking' with a virtual switch, but can't seem to stop the delay. Any pointers? TIA C
Multi-System Reactor
Reactor Loading Screen Safari
S
Topic thumbnail image
Multi-System Reactor
Constraints states visually do not match actual
S
Topic thumbnail image
Multi-System Reactor
[MSR] Feature request: For Each action on arrays/groups
therealdbT
Topic thumbnail image
Multi-System Reactor

[Solved] Group in Reset Reaction is being ignored

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved Multi-System Reactor
7 Posts 2 Posters 1.3k Views 2 Watching
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • 3 Offline
    3 Offline
    3rdStng
    wrote on last edited by 3rdStng
    #1

    They say plagiarism is the best form of flattery, right? Or something like that. Thanks go to @gwp1 for the great title of this subject. I'm trying to get into using the new (to me) group option within the Set and Reset Reactions. I have the Set action working beautifully, however my reset reaction is not. What I am after, which maybe this isn't even possible, is one rule for the motion sensed in my garage. Upon motion, and it night time, turn on the lights. And upon no motion, and no motion for 10 minutes, turn off the lights.

    MSR Docker on unRAID: latest-22293
    Hubitat 2.3.3.137
    HaaS 2022.10.4

    Trigger:
    If motion is detected by either sensor

    Set Reaction:
    Only turn the lights on between 30 minutes before sunset and 30 minutes after sunrise.

    Reset Reaction: (I've tried a few variations, each with conditional options set.)
    Tried: Both Motion sensors, in an AND group or individually as an AND, are False and sustained false for 10 minutes.
    Tried: Rule State (this rule itself) is False and sustained false for 10 minutes.

    Basically the additional condition I am putting into the Reset Reaction group is being ignored and as soon as either motion sensors is false from it's normal reset time, the lights turn off. I would like to have a 10 minute delay before the lights go off. In case I'm moving around and re-trigger a sensor. Are additional conditions allowed within the Reset Group option? Or am I way off and should just break this into two rules? One for on and one for off?

    EDIT: Forgot to include my reasoning for not putting the Delay reset for 600 within the Trigger. I want the garage lights to come on again, if they are off, after the motion sensors native timeout has reset. For example, if I go in the garage, the lights automatically turn on. When I leave the garage, I will turn them off. But if I return within 2 minutes, and less than 10 minutes, turn the lights back on again for me.

    5cd34edf-11b0-4929-9841-2f635c761881-image.png

    1 Reply Last reply
    0
    • toggledbitsT Offline
      toggledbitsT Offline
      toggledbits
      wrote on last edited by toggledbits
      #2

      Yeah, that's not how you do that. The Reset reaction runs as soon as your triggers go false. What you really need to do is keep your triggers from going false too early. Your motion sensors have a reset period that is shorter than your ten minute wish (that is, they signal no motion on their own timing, which appears to be shorter than 10 minutes, not at all unusual), so you need to stretch out that time.

      Since you already have your triggers in an OR group, this will be easy. Just open the condition options for your OR group, and in the "Follow" section for "delay reset", add a 600 second delay. This is a resettable delay that will restart every time motion is detected, so if motion is detected during the 10 minute delay, the delay will restart anew, keeping the lights on until there is truly no motion detected for 10 minutes.

      Your Reset reaction can then just turn the lights off; it needs nothing else (no groups or constraints — remove those).

      Edit: to be specific about the reason your Reset reaction doesn't work as you've shown it, as I said, when both motion sensors no longer signal motion, that OR trigger group goes false, and the Reset reaction runs. Since you have a group with constraints, the first thing that happens is that Reactor checks to see if the constraints have been met, and in Reactor's view, your constraint is "Garage - on" (rule) has been false for 10 minutes; there's no way it can be at that moment, and Reactor isn't going to stop there and wait for that to be true; that's not how constraints work. The constraint test is instantaneous, and Reactor only runs the group actions if the constraint conditions are true in that instant. Reactor sees they are not, so skips the power off actions and the Reset reaction is then done working. Reactor will not run it again when the constraint is satisfied, because again, that's not how constraints work.

      Edit 2: Also, please don't reuse/plagiarize another existing thread's title. That's really confusing for people searching later, or even reading now. A better and more specific title (for both of those posts) would be appreciated. Post titles should be more descriptive of the problem. Refer to the posting guidelines for examples.

      Author of Multi-system Reactor and Reactor, DelayLight, Switchboard, and about a dozen other plugins that run on Vera and openLuup.

      3 1 Reply Last reply
      1
      • toggledbitsT toggledbits

        Yeah, that's not how you do that. The Reset reaction runs as soon as your triggers go false. What you really need to do is keep your triggers from going false too early. Your motion sensors have a reset period that is shorter than your ten minute wish (that is, they signal no motion on their own timing, which appears to be shorter than 10 minutes, not at all unusual), so you need to stretch out that time.

        Since you already have your triggers in an OR group, this will be easy. Just open the condition options for your OR group, and in the "Follow" section for "delay reset", add a 600 second delay. This is a resettable delay that will restart every time motion is detected, so if motion is detected during the 10 minute delay, the delay will restart anew, keeping the lights on until there is truly no motion detected for 10 minutes.

        Your Reset reaction can then just turn the lights off; it needs nothing else (no groups or constraints — remove those).

        Edit: to be specific about the reason your Reset reaction doesn't work as you've shown it, as I said, when both motion sensors no longer signal motion, that OR trigger group goes false, and the Reset reaction runs. Since you have a group with constraints, the first thing that happens is that Reactor checks to see if the constraints have been met, and in Reactor's view, your constraint is "Garage - on" (rule) has been false for 10 minutes; there's no way it can be at that moment, and Reactor isn't going to stop there and wait for that to be true; that's not how constraints work. The constraint test is instantaneous, and Reactor only runs the group actions if the constraint conditions are true in that instant. Reactor sees they are not, so skips the power off actions and the Reset reaction is then done working. Reactor will not run it again when the constraint is satisfied, because again, that's not how constraints work.

        Edit 2: Also, please don't reuse/plagiarize another existing thread's title. That's really confusing for people searching later, or even reading now. A better and more specific title (for both of those posts) would be appreciated. Post titles should be more descriptive of the problem. Refer to the posting guidelines for examples.

        3 Offline
        3 Offline
        3rdStng
        wrote on last edited by 3rdStng
        #3

        Thank you for the very detailed explanation. I haven't really dove into constraints before and clearly I need to so I understand them better.

        @toggledbits said in Group in Reset Reaction is being ignored:

        open the condition options for your OR group, and in the "Follow" section for "delay reset", add a 600 second delay. This is a resettable delay that will restart every time motion is detected, so if motion is detected during the 10 minute delay, the delay will restart anew

        This is exactly how I have all my Motion rules defined. And they work as expected. But in this particular rule, I want the Set reaction to trigger again if it detected motion by either sensor after their timeout and before the 10 minute reset delay within MSR.

        Use case: I enter the garage, the lights turn on. I leave the garage and manually turn the lights off. (Assuming there is a 10 minute delay reset defined) I return to the garage 2 minutes later, the sensors detect movement, I would like the lights to turn back on.

        With the 10 minute reset delay defined, MSR will see the rule still as true at that 2 minute mark and not fire the Set reaction again, correct?

        @toggledbits said in Group in Reset Reaction is being ignored:

        please don't reuse/plagiarize another existing thread's title

        I will fix this.

        EDIT: If the solution for this is to have two rules, I am perfectly fine with that. I just happened to see that Groups were an option within the reactions now and was determining if there is a way to consolidate rules. But if I need an ON and and OFF rule, I'm good with that.

        1 Reply Last reply
        0
        • toggledbitsT Offline
          toggledbitsT Offline
          toggledbits
          wrote on last edited by
          #4

          OK. Then I think two rules will probably be the easiest way.

          Your "On" rule is simple then... either sensor senses motion (OR group with two conditions as before), turn on the light in the Set reaction. No constraints, delays, etc., and no reset reaction, in this rule.

          Your "Off" rule is an AND group with two conditions: the light is on (Entity Attribute condition) AND the "On" rule has been false for 10 minutes (sustained for delay on a Rule State condition looking at the "On" rule with the is FALSE operator). Set reaction turns the light off.

          Any time motion is sensed, the "On" rule will turn on the light (harmless if it's already on). If the light is on and the "On" rule hasn't seen anything for 10 minutes, the "Off" rule triggers and turns off the light. If you turn off the light manually, and then go back in the room a moment later, the "On" rule will turn the light back on.

          Author of Multi-system Reactor and Reactor, DelayLight, Switchboard, and about a dozen other plugins that run on Vera and openLuup.

          3 1 Reply Last reply
          2
          • toggledbitsT toggledbits

            OK. Then I think two rules will probably be the easiest way.

            Your "On" rule is simple then... either sensor senses motion (OR group with two conditions as before), turn on the light in the Set reaction. No constraints, delays, etc., and no reset reaction, in this rule.

            Your "Off" rule is an AND group with two conditions: the light is on (Entity Attribute condition) AND the "On" rule has been false for 10 minutes (sustained for delay on a Rule State condition looking at the "On" rule with the is FALSE operator). Set reaction turns the light off.

            Any time motion is sensed, the "On" rule will turn on the light (harmless if it's already on). If the light is on and the "On" rule hasn't seen anything for 10 minutes, the "Off" rule triggers and turns off the light. If you turn off the light manually, and then go back in the room a moment later, the "On" rule will turn the light back on.

            3 Offline
            3 Offline
            3rdStng
            wrote on last edited by
            #5

            @toggledbits I like your off rule. It is a different approach than what I have. The end result of both is the same though.

            My off rule has the sensors in an AND group (when the sensor is true) with a delay reset of 10 minutes. There is no Set reaction. Only a reset reaction to turn the light off.

            1 Reply Last reply
            0
            • toggledbitsT Offline
              toggledbitsT Offline
              toggledbits
              wrote on last edited by
              #6

              Not sure you want an AND group with that construction... it requires both sensors to detect motion for the group to be true at the same time. That may be right a lot of the time, but I'll bet it's not some of the time...

              Author of Multi-system Reactor and Reactor, DelayLight, Switchboard, and about a dozen other plugins that run on Vera and openLuup.

              3 1 Reply Last reply
              1
              • toggledbitsT toggledbits

                Not sure you want an AND group with that construction... it requires both sensors to detect motion for the group to be true at the same time. That may be right a lot of the time, but I'll bet it's not some of the time...

                3 Offline
                3 Offline
                3rdStng
                wrote on last edited by
                #7

                @toggledbits You are correct. I had an extra motion sensor and was planning on putting it on the opposite side. While I was testing, with three sensors in the AND group, it dawned on me that all three would have to have triggered and gone false for this to work. This won't happen if you only enter the garage a few feet and never to the other side. I ended up creating my rules exactly how your example was and it's working great. Thanks for the insight and example.

                1 Reply Last reply
                1
                • toggledbitsT toggledbits locked this topic on
                Reply
                • Reply as topic
                Log in to reply
                • Oldest to Newest
                • Newest to Oldest
                • Most Votes


                Recent Topics

                • Access control - allowing anonymous user to dashboard
                  toggledbitsT
                  toggledbits
                  0
                  2
                  49

                • VEC Virtual Switch Auto Off
                  S
                  SweetGenius
                  1
                  1
                  37

                • Upcoming Storage Change -- Got Back-ups?
                  toggledbitsT
                  toggledbits
                  2
                  1
                  32

                • Oddness in Copy/Move of Reactions
                  G
                  gwp1
                  0
                  1
                  64

                • [Solved] function isRuleEnabled() issue
                  CrilleC
                  Crille
                  0
                  4
                  97

                • [Reactor] Problem with Global Reactions and groups
                  therealdbT
                  therealdb
                  0
                  3
                  109

                • Possible feature request 2?
                  CatmanV2C
                  CatmanV2
                  0
                  3
                  81

                • Reactor (Multi-System/Multi-Hub) Announcements
                  toggledbitsT
                  toggledbits
                  5
                  133
                  80.1k

                • Genuinely impressed with Zigbee and HA / Reactor
                  CatmanV2C
                  CatmanV2
                  1
                  9
                  395

                • Copying a global reaction
                  toggledbitsT
                  toggledbits
                  0
                  3
                  119

                • [HowTo] Using HABridge with Reactor
                  CatmanV2C
                  CatmanV2
                  0
                  9
                  457

                • [Reactor] Bug when sending MQTT boolean payloads
                  toggledbitsT
                  toggledbits
                  0
                  4
                  176
                Powered by NodeBB | Contributors
                Hosted freely by 10RUPTiV - Solutions Technologiques | Contact us
                • Login

                • Don't have an account? Register

                • Login or register to search.
                • First post
                  Last post
                0
                • Categories
                • Recent
                • Tags
                • Popular
                • Unsolved