Organizing/ structuring rule sets and rules

[Pabla]

@toggledbits this makes tons of sense why anyone should want an update button mainly Docker users.

In terms of bare metal users, say if a user messed with their files permissions enough that it would cause issues when updating Reactor, wouldn't they run into the same errors even if they manually updated or used the update button? I wouldn't mind an update button for bare metal users, since from your explanation seems like a possible issue with won't come up with the actually update process itself, it can come with something else (like file permissions etc). Meaning that they'd run into these errors even if they manually updated Reactor like we do now.

Not arguing though, its a fairly low level request from me. I can clearly see why an update button for Docker users could be a slow and silent death. As @CatmanV2 for bare metal the update process really only takes 90 seconds ahah.

[toggledbits]

@pabla said in Quality of Life Request: Update Button:

wouldn't they run into the same errors even if they manually updated or used the update button?

Not necessarily... some users... I've seen it... will run into permission problems and their answer, not understanding the problem or how to fix it, is to use sudo tar xvf to just lay tracks over everything. This would eliminate the permissions problem unpackaging the archive, but new files may become root-owned, which isn't right but the code doesn't care as long as its readable. If their umask allows world-readable files (and 022 is a common default that does exactly that), the Reactor runtime will never know permissions are broken, because every file it needs is readable without consideration of ownership. The un-tar'ing doesn't touch logs, config, etc. so any permissions there aren't relevant and aren't changed. And because some of the files are now root-owned that shouldn't be, the permissions problem has been made worse and again, unless they are truly fixed the right way, then sudo will continue to be the only way upgrades will succeed. It perpetuates and exacerbates.

I really get how painful the docker upgrades are on Synology. I'm guessing QNAP is probably not much different, and I think several people have been bitten by Portainer oddities regardless of platform.

The process just needs more thought. I could, for example, from the next build onward, prevent the system from starting if the config and data are from a newer version. The problem there is that it needs to be detected early in startup, and if the system can't use the data, it has to exit hard, because it can't run without any data at all, and it can't touch what it has. There would be no UI feedback other than "DISCONNECTED" (i.e. the behavior when Reactor can't start). A "click-to-upgrade" to fix it wouldn't be an option because the UI would not be running, so a manual upgrade would be required at that point. And maybe that's OK? Maybe that's such an extreme/infrequent circumstance that it should be that way? A manual upgrade once in a blue moon may not be so bad... I don't know... looking for feedback... trying to figure it out...

[SweetGenius]

I personally do not think the update process on Synology docker is that bad. A few more clicks than an easy button but not horrible. All my other docker containers are updated the same way. I like the docker image though. I am not familiar with the other platforms so I can’t comment on those update processes.

[gwp1]

I would upvote the backup and restore buttons but don't see a need for the update button. I'm bare metal and it's literally a two-minute process.

[Snowman]

I too am happy with the current process. Super fast for me. I run everything under Synology/Docker. I no longer have issues upgrading containers such as Reactor, HA, etc. since I switched to Portainer several months ago. So not sure what those "Portainer" oddities are/were. Something I should keep an eye on? Or I have just been lucky?

[Black Cat]

@snowman said in Quality of Life Request: Update Button:

Something I should keep an eye on? Or I have just been lucky?

I doubt it, it's me who is unlucky with Portainer & MSR.....

[Andr]

Some input from a Windows user.
An update button would of course be a nice to have feature, but I also agree with several other here. A "normal" update, aka don't need new dependencies, just take a short moment to install.
Were I usually stumble is when an update of dependencies are needed. That have taken me hours of search-try--error-tryagain before getting that to work sometimes.

My dream would be to have a "windows installer" for MSR, that checks dependencies, install a systemservice etc.
Over time I think that would be a safer/more stable way, with fewer user errors.

With this said, I can understand really understand that @toggledbits need to handle this "his way" to be able to support differen't enviroments (and users )

[Alan_F]

I don't know if this helps for other Docker users, but not long after I got started with Docker I found Portainer, and I've been running it alongside Reactor and my other containers on my Raspberry Pi 4. With Portainer, there may not be a one-step update button, but I find it makes updates much easier.

I just updated Reactor to the latest. All I had to do was go to the Portainer URL in my browser, then

• Click on the Reactor container in the Containers list

• Click 'Recreate"

• Toggle "Always pull new image" on the window that pops up

• Click "Recreate"

It isn't one click, but it can be done in a browser tab from any machine with network access to the Docker host. No VNC/SSH into the machine, no Docker commands to run from the command line.

Portainer also has links to view the container logs and to open a command window in the container, which I use all the time. You can also use the "duplicate/edit" button to change or add environment variables while updating, which is how I added the NODE_PATH a few updates back.

[Black Cat]

Thanks for the Portainer explanation, I'm certain I've had a spell cast on me. I'll try again once the Pi400 become available once more.

Lastly, I think the point has been lost, it's about QOL, not about how easy it is to do in another way.
From my perspective if it isn't easy to use by 98% of the public then it's too much trouble and they might look at it then discard it for another solution.
The comments so far are from users who are in the 2% and are happy to tinker. I'm happy for you.
If anyone wants to see how Consumer friendly software should be to set up, then have a look at Homeseer4. Update ...no problem with 1 click.

[gwp1]

@black-cat Isn't homeseer a walled garden like Hubitat, Ezlo, etc.? You buy their hub and live within their infrastructure.

That's not MSR. MSR works on various OS/hardware and communicates with multiple hubs.

Whilst I appreciate your POV, it's not apples>apples comparison you're making here.

[Black Cat]

@gwp1 said in Quality of Life Request: Update Button:

You buy their hub and live within their infrastructure.

Nup, you can use any old Laptop or RasPi. Runs on Windows or Lynx. i'd love to promote MSR to Homeseer users but it lacks the simplicity hence the backing of the request.
Realistically, I'm not going to see it happen which is a shame as Patrick has put a lot of time into development for the 2%.

[tunnus]

@sweetgenius I agree, Synology Docker container upgrade process is not too bad.

I frequently keep both MSR and Synology UI open on separate browser tabs and either do a quick upgrade using "reset" or a bit careful upgrade using "duplicate settings" and retaining old container as a backup/rollback option.

Originally I favored a simple update button for MSR, but after Patrick's explanations I realized it's not that simple after all.

[gwp1]

@black-cat Interesting, I guess I missed that it's available as a paid download for install on whatever platform.

[toggledbits]

@black-cat said in Quality of Life Request: Update Button:

Realistically, I'm not going to see it happen which is a shame as Patrick has put a lot of time into development for the 2%.

I completely understand this position and I want you (all of you) to understand where I currently stand on this (boy, that's a lot of standing)...

First, I agree that the upgrade issue is important. My long missive wasn't meant to say "not doing it," it was meant to communicate that it's not a simple issue, and isn't one of those features that suddenly appears in the next build after a couple of posts. There are some real issues with usability and stability that have to be taken into account. What I definitely don't want is to have it be a feature that bricks users when they've gotten small parts of the installation wrong, or their system is set up in some weird way. It's a nightmare for the user, obviously, to have their automation suddenly not working, and it's also a nightmare for me to remote-troubleshoot a system where I have no idea what's been done to it, how it got to where it is, what flailing may have happened since it went down, etc. Troubleshooting inside Reactor is hard enough; troubleshooting the rest of the universe around it is not a business I want to be in. I am confident that I can sufficiently engineer, at least for Linux users, a sufficiently robust pre-flight check of the system to reduce the risk of an upgrade going wrong, and that is where a lot of time will be spent. As I said, I already have a running upgrade facility in the recent builds. It does not have the depth of pre-flight that I feel it needs to make me confident that you can be confident in using it... yet.

Backup and restore is a similar issue, although a slightly more contained problem. I already have a running backup facility in the system. What is not there is a UI for restore, and I've mentioned before, very often the UI for things is as much or more code than the feature itself. It's also a lot harder to test, not just because there are multiple browsers that have to be considered, but because the core features of the product are easy to write automated test tools for, while UI testing tends more toward spending screen time.

The real usability issue for me, about which I am most concerned, is none of these, though. The real usability issue for me is settings. I don't want you to have to spend time learning or editing YAML (or JSON). I have long had a plan to write a settings subsystem for the UI. This is an incredibly complex problem to solve, and I've prototyped several approaches and, so far, not been satisfied with the results — it's very easy to back yourself into a corner. It cannot be done without changes in core as well, many of which will have to be evolved into the system over time. Evidence of this complexity can be seen in the Home Assistant world, where their team has literally spent years making the transition from YAML configuration of entities and integrations to UI-based.

I've already read between the lines on this thread, and the backup thread. My current engineering plan is to focus entirely on these three usability issues for the foreseeable future. You will, for some time to come, see a minimum of new core features. I will continue bug-fix and device support updates, but I would guess at this point that you won't see any new major feature upgrades until late Q1 or early Q2 2023. It's going to be a long road. But I believe that the settings issue, in particular, is the real big mover in terms of getting me out of @Black-Cat 's "2%". Adding backup/restore and upgrade will put me on track to an appliance-ready product, which is really my long-term goal.

Core functionality has been the focus for over two years. I agree it's time to make "expert mode" an option, not a requirement.

[therealdb]

@toggledbits I have a small script running in background to update msr via docker, at my command, when I'm outside and I don't want to ssh into the machine. I for one will love a flag or similar to know a new version is available and do my own thing. I've not looked at the entities, to be honest.

Semplification (such as automatic device discovery and a click to add to the engine) is what will make a huge difference for the average brother in-law trying to lightly automate stuff - I agree.

[toggledbits]

@therealdb said in Quality of Life Request: Update Button:

I for one will love a flag or similar to know a new version is available and do my own thing. I've not looked at the entities, to be honest.

Check out the reactor_system.update_available attribute on the Reactor System (reactor_system>system) entity.

[gwp1]

@toggledbits @therealdb I've used this to create a Pushover notification to my watch. This also surfaces in the Current Alerts pane.

[CatmanV2]

@gwp1 said in Quality of Life Request: Update Button:

@toggledbits @therealdb I've used this to create a Pushover notification to my watch. This also surfaces in the Current Alerts pane.

I'm getting Telegram.....

I'd have Alexa tell me, but I have no idea what time of day updates might be made available

C

[Black Cat]

@gwp1 said in Quality of Life Request: Update Button:

I guess I missed that it's available as a paid download for install on whatever platform.

So, there is no misconception about paid or free software, Homeseer is available as a 30-day free trial for anyone to test, it often comes up on special as well .
Just to ease any further concerns it has also been around for over 20 years - try the freebie you might be surprised how good it is as an OS for HA.

[Black Cat]

@toggledbits , thank you for your in-depth reply, there is no need to rush as there are no Raspberrys available (in our region) until mid-March (if we are lucky).