Does this rule look correct ?
-
Pretty much all spot on. @Pabla I think there's enough of the Vera Reactor flavor for you to be comfortable once you start playing with it. The big differences are coming out in this thread. No ReactorSensors, but you can use Rule Sets to organize your rules. No activities (reactions in MSR) on groups, but you can make active groups into rules so they can have reactions. This is one of the big things the importer does... it scans through your ReactorSensor data finding groups that have activities and turns them into independent rules, leaving an MSR rule condition where the group was to preserve the logic (analogous to a Group State condition in Vera Reactor, as if you had moved the group elsewhere). The other big difference is the addition of Constraints as a passive filter. I say passive because changes in the conditions under Constraints can't initiate action in the rule; only a change in the state of Triggers does that. But all of the alternative tools one would use to get the same effect in Vera Reactor (e.g. sequencing option) are still there.
@cw-kid, I definitely think you're getting the hang of it.
-
-
-
I really like the idea of constraints, in Vera reactor to have something similar you'd have to have a bunch of sub-groups within other sub-groups. Well done @toggledbits
-
I really like the idea of constraints, in Vera reactor to have something similar you'd have to have a bunch of sub-groups within other sub-groups. Well done @toggledbits
@pabla said in Does this rule look correct ?:
Well done @toggledbits
I can't take credit. When I first made contact with Hass... four? really? OK... four years ago, it was something it had that looked pretty interesting.
-
T toggledbits locked this topic on