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. Feature Request - Wait for an event/trigger within Reaction [Solved with Work Around]
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

Feature Request - Wait for an event/trigger within Reaction [Solved with Work Around]

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved Multi-System Reactor
12 Posts 5 Posters 2.0k Views 5 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
    #3

    Hmm.... Thanks for this, I think I can make it work, but it may take two Repeat While actions. It doesn't appear that I can wait for a change. It's only waiting for a True or False and not a change from Opened to Closed.

    I believe in my rule I would need a "Repeat While the door is false" (open) to wait for someone to actually open the door. Then a "Repeat While the door is true" (closed) to wait for them to close the door and then continuing on the actions to turn off the lights.

    1 Reply Last reply
    0
    • PablaP Offline
      PablaP Offline
      Pabla
      wrote on last edited by
      #4

      You read my mind! I have been wanting a "wait for" action in MSR for a while now never got around to making a post for it. I would want it to closely match the implementation made in HA for the "wait for trigger" action

      1 Reply Last reply
      0
      • toggledbitsT Offline
        toggledbitsT Offline
        toggledbits
        wrote on last edited by
        #5

        Well, really if it's just as simple as turning on the lights when the door opens, and then waiting for a close to turn them off, the rule trigger conditions should handle detecting the door opening, and the first action in the Set reaction would be to turn the lights on. Then you can wait for the door to close, and turn the lights off.

        But then, if the rule triggers are only detecting if the door is open, why not have the Set reaction turn the lights on, and the Reset reaction turn the lights off? No "wait for" needed at all, because the logic is handling it.

        As you disclose details, it's beginning to look like you've imagined a solution based on some other product, and you're trying to get Reactor to work its way, instead of doing it "the Reactor way."

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

        3 PablaP 2 Replies Last reply
        0
        • toggledbitsT toggledbits

          Well, really if it's just as simple as turning on the lights when the door opens, and then waiting for a close to turn them off, the rule trigger conditions should handle detecting the door opening, and the first action in the Set reaction would be to turn the lights on. Then you can wait for the door to close, and turn the lights off.

          But then, if the rule triggers are only detecting if the door is open, why not have the Set reaction turn the lights on, and the Reset reaction turn the lights off? No "wait for" needed at all, because the logic is handling it.

          As you disclose details, it's beginning to look like you've imagined a solution based on some other product, and you're trying to get Reactor to work its way, instead of doing it "the Reactor way."

          3 Offline
          3 Offline
          3rdStng
          wrote on last edited by
          #6

          @toggledbits said in Feature Request - Wait for an event/trigger within Reaction:

          As you disclose details, it's beginning to look like you've imagined a solution based on some other product, and you're trying to get Reactor to work its way, instead of doing it "the Reactor way."

          That is very possible. I'm still mentally mapping this out too. And I 100% know that an image of my rule set would really help clear things up. I'm not in a position to get a screenshot at the moment. I'll try to put my thoughts in to text. (scary)

          Rule set as of today:
          Triggers:
          After midnight AND
          Before sunrise AND
          Any Presence Sensor in the group changes from Not Present to Present

          Actions:
          Turn on the porch light
          Turn on the driveway lights
          Wait for a random period of time between 10-15 minutes
          Turn off the porch light
          Turn off the driveway lights

          What I am after is within the Actions only. The Triggers are still the same.

          Actions:
          Turn on the porch light
          Turn on the driveway lights
          Wait until the HE Hub variable "lastDoorLockEvent" reports "Manually locked"
          Wait for a random period of time between 10-15 minutes
          Turn off the porch light
          Turn off the driveway lights

          The waiting until the hub variable is what's potentially causing the issue. When I go to bed, and assuming the door was open, I'll close it and lock it. So the hub variable now reports "Manually locked". If someone arrives after midnight and before sunrise, the variable will still report "Manually locked" since the lock status hasn't changed yet. So theoretically MSR won't wait since it already sees the variable as what it is looking for.

          And as I type this out, I suppose I could insert a set variable into the actions. I honestly haven't looked yet, but can MSR set a variable that is local to the hub only? Not within MSR.

          Actions:
          Turn on the porch light
          Turn on the driveway lights
          Set HE Hub variable "lastDoorLockEvent" to "waiting entry"
          Repeat Until the HE Hub variable "lastDoorLockEvent" reports "Manually locked"
          Wait for a random period of time between 10-15 minutes
          Turn off the porch light
          Turn off the driveway lights

          The entire concept stems from Hubitat's Rule Machine's "Wait for event" that you can define in a rule. I have a couple of these at my remote HE, where I can't run MSR easily.

          1 Reply Last reply
          0
          • toggledbitsT Offline
            toggledbitsT Offline
            toggledbits
            wrote on last edited by
            #7

            OK. This makes it much more clear. Your solution is workable. There are a few ways to attack it, but what you've posted should work. You picked up on the state of the hub variable, which is important. You hub variable should appear as an entity with the string_sensor capability, and it should have an extended action (x_hubitat_Variable.setVariable) to let you change the value.

            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
            0
            • toggledbitsT toggledbits

              OK. This makes it much more clear. Your solution is workable. There are a few ways to attack it, but what you've posted should work. You picked up on the state of the hub variable, which is important. You hub variable should appear as an entity with the string_sensor capability, and it should have an extended action (x_hubitat_Variable.setVariable) to let you change the value.

              3 Offline
              3 Offline
              3rdStng
              wrote on last edited by 3rdStng
              #8

              @toggledbits said in Feature Request - Wait for an event/trigger within Reaction:

              hub variable should appear as an entity with the string_sensor capability, and it should have an extended action (x_hubitat_Variable.setVariable) to let you change the value.

              Worked perfectly!

              Thank you for the feedback and allowing me to type out my thoughts to refine this rule.

              1 Reply Last reply
              0
              • toggledbitsT toggledbits

                Well, really if it's just as simple as turning on the lights when the door opens, and then waiting for a close to turn them off, the rule trigger conditions should handle detecting the door opening, and the first action in the Set reaction would be to turn the lights on. Then you can wait for the door to close, and turn the lights off.

                But then, if the rule triggers are only detecting if the door is open, why not have the Set reaction turn the lights on, and the Reset reaction turn the lights off? No "wait for" needed at all, because the logic is handling it.

                As you disclose details, it's beginning to look like you've imagined a solution based on some other product, and you're trying to get Reactor to work its way, instead of doing it "the Reactor way."

                PablaP Offline
                PablaP Offline
                Pabla
                wrote on last edited by
                #9

                @toggledbits One case I can think of where this is useful is as follows. Note I try to avoid making multiple rules to achieve this since it make managing them much harder.

                I have some triggers (not relevant in this example) for my front doorbell when a person, vehicle, animal or package is detected. Each of these have their own respective rule. In the actions I have TTS action that says "{object name} detected at the front door". I also have another action after that send a notification to my phone with a snapshot and description of the doorbell activity.

                The problem I run into, is that on occasion the snapshot takes a few extra seconds to come through. Now in my case I want the TTS to say what's at the door right away regardless of the snapshot since its irrelevant and then wait till the snapshot updates to send the push notification.

                To combat the delay I added a condition in my triggers that wait for the snapshot time to update before sending the TTS and notification. Using this workaround it introduces a delay in the TTS action as well. Ideally having a "wait for" action for when the snapshot updates to then send the notification will fix the problem without needing to create another rule.

                1 Reply Last reply
                0
                • 3 Offline
                  3 Offline
                  3rdStng
                  wrote on last edited by 3rdStng
                  #10

                  Refined my actions to include a timeout, just in case someone comes home, but they leave without entering the door.

                  Actions:
                  Set variable 'lastLockEvent' to "pending entry"
                  Turn on porch light
                  Turn on driveway lights
                  Repeat While:
                  -- Triggers:
                  -- [lastLockEvent] contains "manually locked"
                  -- [OR]
                  -- [lastLockEvent] contains "pending entry" (condition sustained for 20 minutes)
                  -- Actions:
                  -- Delay 10 seconds
                  Delay random between 1 to 5 minutes
                  Turn off porch light
                  Turn off driveway lights

                  1 Reply Last reply
                  1
                  • toggledbitsT toggledbits

                    @3rdStng said in Feature Request - Wait for an event/trigger within Reaction:

                    I would like to kick off the reaction, but pause it part way through and wait for the door to close and lock, then continue it on.

                    A Repeat...While group will execute and prevent the remainder of the Reaction from running until it breaks (conditions are no longer met).

                    e520a1f9-7084-41c4-9aef-1ec834a068ff-image.png

                    The delay prevents it from becoming a huge CPU consumer.

                    Yes, this is a bit of a kludge, and a dedicated action could be more useful. I'll look into it, but in the meanwhile, this workaround should play nicely.

                    tunnusT Offline
                    tunnusT Offline
                    tunnus
                    wrote on last edited by tunnus
                    #11

                    @toggledbits just an idea related to this "repeat...while" group that it could benefit from similar functionality as is available for pulse to prevent it from looping indefinitely. There are sometimes devices not updating their status properly and in those cases it would be nice to ensure exit within reasonable time.

                    This functionality can be done in a following way, for example, but would be more straightforward if it was already built-in

                    Screenshot 2024-08-07 at 21.53.46.png

                    Using MSR on Docker (Synology NAS), having InfluxDB, Grafana & Home Assistant, Hubitat C-8, Zigbee2MQTT & ZWA-2

                    1 Reply Last reply
                    1
                    • therealdbT Offline
                      therealdbT Offline
                      therealdb
                      wrote on last edited by
                      #12

                      For me a "for/foreach" could be useful as well, when dealing with multiple devices and the same actions. Now this part is all code.

                      --
                      On a mission to automate everything.

                      My MS Reactor contrib
                      My Luup Plug-ins

                      1 Reply Last reply
                      0
                      • 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
                        48

                      • VEC Virtual Switch Auto Off
                        S
                        SweetGenius
                        1
                        1
                        36

                      • 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
                        96

                      • [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