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. Low-priority GUI feedback
How to upgrade from an old version of MSR?
cw-kidC
Hello I haven't updated my installation of MSR in a very long time. Its a bare metal Linux install currently on version 24366-3de60836 I see the latest version is now latest-26011-c621bbc7 I assume I cannot just jump from a very old version to the latest version? Or can I? Thanks
Multi-System Reactor
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

Low-priority GUI feedback

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved Multi-System Reactor
53 Posts 6 Posters 11.0k Views 6 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.
  • toggledbitsT toggledbits

    @librasun Yes, (a) would work.

    WRT (b), reactions aren't throttled, and it's not something I want to go to right now because I don't need to maintain state for reactions, they just run. There is also an unexposed mode of reactions where you can run them inline, rather than as separate processes, so the step after Run Reaction would not start until the reaction finishes (in the current/default mode, the reaction is started asynchronously). That would cause infinite recursion and eventually take things down. Even if I block direct self-reference, I would not go so far as to block A runs B, B runs A. Caveat user, but possible.

    I don't like that icon anyway. But I'm trying to stay in one icon family, because using multiple is painful (different sizes, spacing, alignments, etc.), and the library I'm using is big, but still I haven't found anything in it I'm happier with. But I agree, I need to stay away from color alone as a cue (and in this case, it's not just color, but the icon change is very subtle). Here are the eyes in that library:

    3fb2c534-c77c-42ab-ab3c-d56ede00b4b0-image.png

    If you want to look through others, go here: https://icons.getbootstrap.com/

    LibraSunL Offline
    LibraSunL Offline
    LibraSun
    wrote on last edited by
    #27

    @toggledbits said in Low-priority GUI feedback:

    Here are the eyes in that library:

    Though I don't "love" the eyes, I'm accustomed to them being used with Switchboard app (I believe), so I know they do the job.

    We don't need "fancy". 🙂

    1 Reply Last reply
    0
    • LibraSunL Offline
      LibraSunL Offline
      LibraSun
      wrote on last edited by LibraSun
      #28

      @toggledbits here on the Scope screen, one marvels at MSR's extreme precision! :-0

      scope_precision.png

      scope_precision.png

      1 Reply Last reply
      0
      • LibraSunL Offline
        LibraSunL Offline
        LibraSun
        wrote on last edited by
        #29

        @toggledbits I just happened to catch a glimpse, in Rule Sets with one of my Rules expanded, of the countdown displaying:
        false as of 13:23:58 waiting 0-0:00:03 // then 0-0:00:02, then 0-0:00:01 I believe...
        instead of just:
        false as of 13:23:58 waiting 0:00:01 02, 03, etc.
        The extra '0-` bit disappeared after a few seconds, and only happened at the beginning of the count. (My constraint condition is supposed to be true for 60 seconds, and I was specifically watching it to monitor progress.)

        1 Reply Last reply
        0
        • LibraSunL Offline
          LibraSunL Offline
          LibraSun
          wrote on last edited by
          #30

          @toggledbits Nice touch allowing the Expression definition cells to be persistently resized. Really helps with large "Objects".
          Also just noticing the A-Z sort button atop Rule Sets, which I haven't used yet, but that's a nice touch! New to 21096 or just me not noticing before?

          1 Reply Last reply
          0
          • toggledbitsT Offline
            toggledbitsT Offline
            toggledbits
            wrote on last edited by
            #31

            They're not really persistently resized, it's just taking a guess at the size needed based on the number of newlines, but wrapping of very long lines will probably goof it up. But, better than not doing it.

            A-Z has been around for a very long time...

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

            LibraSunL 1 Reply Last reply
            1
            • toggledbitsT toggledbits

              They're not really persistently resized, it's just taking a guess at the size needed based on the number of newlines, but wrapping of very long lines will probably goof it up. But, better than not doing it.

              A-Z has been around for a very long time...

              LibraSunL Offline
              LibraSunL Offline
              LibraSun
              wrote on last edited by LibraSun
              #32

              @toggledbits said in Low-priority GUI feedback:

              A-Z has been around for a very long time...

              One thing that I do believe changed with the release of 21096 is that Rule Sets now resets to the topmost ruleset on each visit. Not sure that's a positive development...?

              With about 20 Rule Sets, while editing a particular group (say "HVAC"), I may jump back and forth to Entities, Expressions, Scope, etc. then back to "HVAC".

              Now, Rule Sets always snaps back to "Assistants" (that is, label nearest "A" -- I keep them alphabetically sorted). Do you have any user feedback to support that behavior? (I can live with it; it's just extra mouse clicks, lol) If not, I vote "go back to 'LastSelectedRuleset'". 🙂

              1 Reply Last reply
              0
              • LibraSunL Offline
                LibraSunL Offline
                LibraSun
                wrote on last edited by
                #33

                IMPORTANT @toggledbits -- I wanted you to bask in this PR-free day, so am asking in the Forum instead:
                If Rule A has nothing in the Set Reaction, I've noticed that it does not "trip" or "trigger" despite the Conditions being met. Consequently, another Rule B failed to execute with its otherwise automatic [Rule State] [Rule A Set] being true.

                Any immediate thoughts on this? And would my immediate "fix" be to include at least a "Comment" in Rule A's Set Reaction?

                I know this is an edge case, but I have several rules like Rule A all grouped together, half with nothing in Set (almost as "placeholders" for when I think of actual stuff I want them to do).

                1 Reply Last reply
                0
                • toggledbitsT Offline
                  toggledbitsT Offline
                  toggledbits
                  wrote on last edited by
                  #34

                  I have tons of rules with no reactions. The setting and saving of the rule state is also quite separate in the code from the point where the reaction is selected and started (or not).

                  Anything logged?

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

                  1 Reply Last reply
                  1
                  • LibraSunL Offline
                    LibraSunL Offline
                    LibraSun
                    wrote on last edited by
                    #35

                    Nope, nothing logged, leaving me to believe it's the underlying trigger mechanism - a Yale Assure deadbolt - is letting me down. Thanks for confirming, though, so I know which rabbit hole to go down tomorrow.

                    1 Reply Last reply
                    0
                    • toggledbitsT Offline
                      toggledbitsT Offline
                      toggledbits
                      wrote on last edited by toggledbits
                      #36

                      If your Rule logging level is 5, there should be sufficient info in the logs for you to see "entity-changed" entries like this:

                      2021-04-09T01:55:23.325Z <Rule:5:Rule.js:466> Rule#rule-grpwswz9u9 dependency notification entity-changed Entity#house>device_6 from Entity#house>device_6
                      2021-04-09T01:55:23.325Z <Rule:5:Rule.js:479> Rule#rule-grpwswz9u9 requesting eval; entity-changed Entity#house>device_6
                      

                      That will be followed by (possibly with stuff between):

                      2021-04-09T01:55:23.325Z <Rule:5:Rule.js:814> Rule#rule-grpwswz9u9 (Auto Fan On) evaluate() acquiring mutex
                      2021-04-09T01:55:23.326Z <Rule:5:Rule.js:820> Rule#rule-grpwswz9u9._evaluate() mutex acquired, evaluating
                      

                      This indicates that the rule is setting up for evaluation (making sure it's not already doing an evaluation). Then:

                      2021-04-09T01:55:23.326Z <Rule:5:Rule.js:668> Rule#rule-grpwswz9u9 evaluateExpressions() with 0 expressions
                      2021-04-09T01:55:23.326Z <Rule:5:Rule.js:863> Rule#rule-grpwswz9u9._evaluate() trigger state now false (was false)
                      2021-04-09T01:55:23.326Z <Rule:5:Rule.js:871> Rule#rule-grpwswz9u9._evaluate() constraints state true
                      2021-04-09T01:55:23.326Z <Rule:null> Rule#rule-grpwswz9u9 rule state now false, changed no
                      

                      The first of these lines indicates the number of expressions being evaluated, which is the first phase of rule evaluation. The next line follows the evaluation of the trigger conditions and gives the new trigger state and the prior state. The line that follows is the evaluation result of the constraints. The fourth line states the overall rule state, and if that's different from the prior rule state. It is after this last line that the reaction to run is chosen (it is only run if the rule state changed as shown in the last log entry).

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

                      LibraSunL 1 Reply Last reply
                      1
                      • toggledbitsT toggledbits

                        If your Rule logging level is 5, there should be sufficient info in the logs for you to see "entity-changed" entries like this:

                        2021-04-09T01:55:23.325Z <Rule:5:Rule.js:466> Rule#rule-grpwswz9u9 dependency notification entity-changed Entity#house>device_6 from Entity#house>device_6
                        2021-04-09T01:55:23.325Z <Rule:5:Rule.js:479> Rule#rule-grpwswz9u9 requesting eval; entity-changed Entity#house>device_6
                        

                        That will be followed by (possibly with stuff between):

                        2021-04-09T01:55:23.325Z <Rule:5:Rule.js:814> Rule#rule-grpwswz9u9 (Auto Fan On) evaluate() acquiring mutex
                        2021-04-09T01:55:23.326Z <Rule:5:Rule.js:820> Rule#rule-grpwswz9u9._evaluate() mutex acquired, evaluating
                        

                        This indicates that the rule is setting up for evaluation (making sure it's not already doing an evaluation). Then:

                        2021-04-09T01:55:23.326Z <Rule:5:Rule.js:668> Rule#rule-grpwswz9u9 evaluateExpressions() with 0 expressions
                        2021-04-09T01:55:23.326Z <Rule:5:Rule.js:863> Rule#rule-grpwswz9u9._evaluate() trigger state now false (was false)
                        2021-04-09T01:55:23.326Z <Rule:5:Rule.js:871> Rule#rule-grpwswz9u9._evaluate() constraints state true
                        2021-04-09T01:55:23.326Z <Rule:null> Rule#rule-grpwswz9u9 rule state now false, changed no
                        

                        The first of these lines indicates the number of expressions being evaluated, which is the first phase of rule evaluation. The next line follows the evaluation of the trigger conditions and gives the new trigger state and the prior state. The line that follows is the evaluation result of the constraints. The fourth line states the overall rule state, and if that's different from the prior rule state. It is after this last line that the reaction to run is chosen (it is only run if the rule state changed as shown in the last log entry).

                        LibraSunL Offline
                        LibraSunL Offline
                        LibraSun
                        wrote on last edited by
                        #37

                        Yup, it was the lock's fault. Seems to have significant lag sending over the "unlocked" status, so my Triggers got out of sync. Fixed!

                        Relieved to know that "empty" Rules are both permitted and normal.

                        1 Reply Last reply
                        0
                        • toggledbitsT Offline
                          toggledbitsT Offline
                          toggledbits
                          wrote on last edited by
                          #38

                          It has to be, otherwise you would not be able to easily use them as building blocks for other rules. I do this extensively.

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

                          1 Reply Last reply
                          1
                          • LibraSunL Offline
                            LibraSunL Offline
                            LibraSun
                            wrote on last edited by
                            #39

                            @toggledbits okay, I am ready to formalize this feature request:

                            Would you consider allowing the run reaction action to allow free form text entry, in such a way that you could still use the drop-down list of reactions, but you could also enter the canonical Rule ID either directly as a text string or via substitution?
                            I can see why you may not want to do this since it introduces the possibility of typographical errors.
                            The reason I'm asking is that I may want to set up a rule that acts as sort of a "director" that runs other rules based on a lookup. Of course I can currently do it in the reverse direction where those rules simply run based on the output value and that's that.

                            Thoughts?

                            1 Reply Last reply
                            0
                            • LibraSunL Offline
                              LibraSunL Offline
                              LibraSun
                              wrote on last edited by LibraSun
                              #40

                              FEEDBACK @toggledbits Note how objects with "text" keys get sorted in "Last Value:" according to "numbers first then letters" (i.e. dictionary style) rather than the order in which keys appear in the Object declaration.
                              objects_sorted.png

                              Probably not bothering most users, but could mildly disrupt workflow of someone who routinely copies "Last Value:" for Pretty Print purposes. I know I'd prefer original order.

                              1 Reply Last reply
                              0
                              • toggledbitsT Offline
                                toggledbitsT Offline
                                toggledbits
                                wrote on last edited by
                                #41

                                Object properties (dictionary keys) do not have a deterministic or guaranteed order in JavaScript.

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

                                1 Reply Last reply
                                1
                                • LibraSunL Offline
                                  LibraSunL Offline
                                  LibraSun
                                  wrote on last edited by LibraSun
                                  #42

                                  UPDATE: Seemingly resolved. Trivial. I added a "hold true for 2 seconds" on Trigger condition, the wait apparently needed in order for "turn ON" event (in Constraints) to be recognized on Vera. Funny, too, because that's the 1st action Alexa's routine issues. Lessons learned: (1) MSR's idea of synchrony is not always the same as my own; and, (2) Alexa may stutter when executing successive steps in Routines (WOW! Noticing gaps of up to 7 seconds here, sometimes Step 1 precedes Step 2, sometimes other way around!). 😉

                                  @toggledbits , pursuant to PR#164 (Closed), I'm unfortunately still grappling with a Rule that (SOMETIMES!) refuses to fire, even when all Conditions go TRUE virtually simultaneously. I may be the world's worst Log reader, but I think the following snippet of said Rule's evaluation process supports what I'm saying:

                                  2021-04-13T14:43:07.810Z <Rule:5:Rule.js:749> Rule#rule-knay6sc6 dependency notification entity-changed Entity#vera>device_211 from Entity#vera>device_211
                                  2021-04-13T14:43:07.811Z <Rule:5:Rule.js:755> Rule#rule-knay6sc6 requesting eval; entity-changed Entity#vera>device_211
                                  2021-04-13T14:43:07.812Z <Rule:5:Rule.js:950> Rule#rule-knay6sc6 (Alexa Director (alexa)) evaluate() acquiring mutex
                                  2021-04-13T14:43:07.813Z <Rule:5:Rule.js:954> Rule#rule-knay6sc6._evaluate() mutex acquired, evaluating
                                  2021-04-13T14:43:07.813Z <Rule:5:Rule.js:958> Rule#rule-knay6sc6 update rate is 0/min limit 60/min
                                  2021-04-13T14:43:07.814Z <Rule:5:Rule.js:880> Rule#rule-knay6sc6 evaluateExpressions() with 3 expressions
                                  2021-04-13T14:43:07.815Z <Rule:5:Rule.js:970> Rule#rule-knay6sc6._evaluate() trigger state now false (was false)
                                  2021-04-13T14:43:07.816Z <Rule:5:Rule.js:972> Rule#rule-knay6sc6._evaluate() constraints state false
                                  2021-04-13T14:43:07.817Z <Rule:null> Rule#rule-knay6sc6 rule state now false, changed no
                                  2021-04-13T14:43:07.936Z <Rule:5:Rule.js:749> Rule#rule-knay6sc6 dependency notification entity-changed Entity#vera>device_211 from Entity#vera>device_211
                                  2021-04-13T14:43:07.938Z <Rule:5:Rule.js:755> Rule#rule-knay6sc6 requesting eval; entity-changed Entity#vera>device_211
                                  2021-04-13T14:43:07.939Z <Rule:5:Rule.js:950> Rule#rule-knay6sc6 (Alexa Director (alexa)) evaluate() acquiring mutex
                                  2021-04-13T14:43:07.940Z <Rule:5:Rule.js:954> Rule#rule-knay6sc6._evaluate() mutex acquired, evaluating
                                  2021-04-13T14:43:07.941Z <Rule:5:Rule.js:958> Rule#rule-knay6sc6 update rate is 1/min limit 60/min
                                  2021-04-13T14:43:07.942Z <Rule:5:Rule.js:880> Rule#rule-knay6sc6 evaluateExpressions() with 3 expressions
                                  2021-04-13T14:43:07.943Z <Rule:5:Rule.js:970> Rule#rule-knay6sc6._evaluate() trigger state now false (was false)
                                  2021-04-13T14:43:07.945Z <Rule:5:Rule.js:1578> cond cond6zfyayg evaluation state false->true
                                  2021-04-13T14:43:07.946Z <Rule:5:Rule.js:1578> cond const evaluation state false->true
                                  2021-04-13T14:43:07.947Z <Rule:5:Rule.js:972> Rule#rule-knay6sc6._evaluate() constraints state true
                                  2021-04-13T14:43:07.948Z <Rule:null> Rule#rule-knay6sc6 rule state now false, changed no
                                  

                                  i.e. both the Triggers and Constraints condition (one each) jump to TRUE, yet the Rule itself remains FALSE, leaving another Rule (which watches this one's state) flapping in the breeze.

                                  Didn't wanna clutter Mantis with this, but happy to. First wanted to pass this by you here, so you could request files/evidence.

                                  As additional background, what's supposed to happen is Alexa hears me utter a preset phrase, causing an Alexa Routine to run. It runs fine (I know because she speaks and turns on music) and performs the two steps (turning on a VS on Vera and dimming another one to a specific value), which I see go "green" in MSR. And yet, as described herein, the Rule itself just sits idle.

                                  Thanks for any guidance here!

                                  • LS
                                  1 Reply Last reply
                                  0
                                  • toggledbitsT Offline
                                    toggledbitsT Offline
                                    toggledbits
                                    wrote on last edited by
                                    #43
                                    2021-04-13T14:43:07.943Z <Rule:5:Rule.js:970> Rule#rule-knay6sc6._evaluate() trigger state now false (was false).
                                    

                                    This is saying the trigger state is false. It says that in both cases. It follows by saying the rule state is false (which is correct if the triggers are false). The constraints are indeed true, but if the triggers are false, the rule state will still be false.

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

                                    LibraSunL 1 Reply Last reply
                                    0
                                    • toggledbitsT toggledbits
                                      2021-04-13T14:43:07.943Z <Rule:5:Rule.js:970> Rule#rule-knay6sc6._evaluate() trigger state now false (was false).
                                      

                                      This is saying the trigger state is false. It says that in both cases. It follows by saying the rule state is false (which is correct if the triggers are false). The constraints are indeed true, but if the triggers are false, the rule state will still be false.

                                      LibraSunL Offline
                                      LibraSunL Offline
                                      LibraSun
                                      wrote on last edited by
                                      #44

                                      @toggledbits said in Low-priority GUI feedback:

                                      This is saying the trigger state is false.

                                      Much appreciated, and sorry for the n00b question. I've spent the morning chasing down gremlins left and right surrounding this "Alexa Director" endeavor, and I give up. I inadvertently created a thicket of Franken-Rules which deserve to go back into the grave.

                                      Think I'll stick with Virtual Switches after all, as they are far more deterministic, predictable, and UI friendly than any attempt I've made thus far to reinvent them with pure logic.

                                      Ha ha, I was having Triggers accidentally trigger multiple Rules and then, once tightened down even further, NONE of the Rules.

                                      I will henceforth regard the VS as a necessary resource on Vera, especially when used as an adjunct to Alexa Routines.

                                      1 Reply Last reply
                                      0
                                      • toggledbitsT Offline
                                        toggledbitsT Offline
                                        toggledbits
                                        wrote on last edited by
                                        #45

                                        Not a n00b question at all. I'd really like to see for myself what's happening. If you still experiment with it more, crank the rule's log level to 6, and send me the results.

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

                                        LibraSunL 1 Reply Last reply
                                        0
                                        • toggledbitsT toggledbits

                                          Not a n00b question at all. I'd really like to see for myself what's happening. If you still experiment with it more, crank the rule's log level to 6, and send me the results.

                                          LibraSunL Offline
                                          LibraSunL Offline
                                          LibraSun
                                          wrote on last edited by LibraSun
                                          #46

                                          @toggledbits said in Low-priority GUI feedback:

                                          I'd really like to see for myself what's happening. If you still experiment with it more, crank the rule's log level to 6, and send me the results.

                                          I'm sure to fiddle around further, but intend that to happen with inconsequential test Rules rather than some of my most prized "Leaving Home", "Coming Home" level workflows.

                                          Will advise... thx.

                                          P.S. You may legitimately ask, "Why are you trying to avoid Virtual Switches in the first place?" Answer: Because I hate having to create them, configure them, propagate them through the Vera UI (rename, relocate, hard refresh) and again through the Alexa ecosystem (name, discover, configure in Routines, etc.). I've been searching for a quick-to-expand alternative method, one that presents itself in all four UIs (Vera, MSR, Alexa, VeraMobile) with rapid adaptability to new workflows (e.g. "Time for Doing a Puzzle") which I might in turn choose to knock down after a few days.

                                          1 Reply Last reply
                                          1
                                          Reply
                                          • Reply as topic
                                          Log in to reply
                                          • Oldest to Newest
                                          • Newest to Oldest
                                          • Most Votes


                                          Recent Topics

                                          • HA and AI
                                            CatmanV2C
                                            CatmanV2
                                            0
                                            1
                                            37

                                          • How to upgrade from an old version of MSR?
                                            CatmanV2C
                                            CatmanV2
                                            0
                                            6
                                            104

                                          • Access control - allowing anonymous user to dashboard
                                            toggledbitsT
                                            toggledbits
                                            0
                                            2
                                            93

                                          • VEC Virtual Switch Auto Off
                                            S
                                            SweetGenius
                                            1
                                            1
                                            66

                                          • Upcoming Storage Change -- Got Back-ups?
                                            toggledbitsT
                                            toggledbits
                                            3
                                            1
                                            59

                                          • Oddness in Copy/Move of Reactions
                                            G
                                            gwp1
                                            0
                                            1
                                            77

                                          • [Solved] function isRuleEnabled() issue
                                            CrilleC
                                            Crille
                                            0
                                            4
                                            150

                                          • [Reactor] Problem with Global Reactions and groups
                                            therealdbT
                                            therealdb
                                            0
                                            3
                                            147

                                          • Possible feature request 2?
                                            CatmanV2C
                                            CatmanV2
                                            0
                                            3
                                            121

                                          • Reactor (Multi-System/Multi-Hub) Announcements
                                            toggledbitsT
                                            toggledbits
                                            5
                                            133
                                            82.2k

                                          • Genuinely impressed with Zigbee and HA / Reactor
                                            CatmanV2C
                                            CatmanV2
                                            1
                                            9
                                            423

                                          • Copying a global reaction
                                            toggledbitsT
                                            toggledbits
                                            0
                                            3
                                            146
                                          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