@tunnus said in [Reactor] Variables not updating correctly in latest-25201-2aa18550:

this issue of scrolling a long rule

That is a huge rule. I'm not going to address this now. I may look at it later, but I think this case is a true outlier and the juice may not be worth the squeeze. jQuery determines when to draw the objects on screen, and that's causing the scroll shifts as it adds new objects and the browser adds them to the display. I can't prevent the scroll shift when new objects are added; that's between jQuery and the browser. The only thing I could reasonably do is prevent jQuery drawing anything at all until the entire structure has been created off-screen, then draw it all at once. My desktop is an i9-9900K, so pretty fast even by today's standards, and it takes almost 15 seconds in Brave to create the entire page structure. That means you'd have 15 seconds of a blank page (or maybe a spinner and a "Please wait...") while it works at it. I don't really feel like much is gained by doing that, because your real goal is to be able to start looking through the rule while it's still drawing.

This rule is begging to be broken up. For what it's worth, I'm also working on changes to support parameterized rules and reactions that could make logic like this more modular and less "verbose" and repetitious in terms of their structure.

@tunnus said in [Reactor] Variables not updating correctly in latest-25201-2aa18550:

But if you want to look at this, I could send you a JSON file of the rule so that you get a better idea?

Yes, I'd be interested in looking at that. I think you can re-use the link I sent you previously.

Also, I pushed a 25292 build this morning. One of the two issues addressed therein could be related to what you are seeing, so if you haven't gone to that build yet, you might try it first.

@tunnus said in [Reactor] Variables not updating correctly in latest-25201-2aa18550:

wow, Set Rules widget is now lightning fast!

Haha! Yeah, I gave it a specialized API endpoint. It's much faster to gather the necessary data on the server side and just push it through.

OK. I just pushed 25291 for 64-bit Intel/AMD only (should be correct for your Synology NAS). Give that a try.

Got the log files; looking at them. Did you newly create this rule for the test?

OK. Follow the instructions from this prior post to set up a log file just for this rule. Restart Reactor and just change the price_array. Then capture that log file. I will send you a link when I get home tonight where you can upload it.

Oh that's not horrible, considering the amount of information it has to retrieve. But, I may be able to improve on it slightly. Stay tuned... the changelog is getting long for this release...

@tunnus said in [Reactor] Variables not updating correctly in latest-25201-2aa18550:

Another more cosmetic issue is that there seems to be a quite long delay until "Set Rules" widget gets populated? Using Chrome v141

Haven't observed anything like that. More detail needed. Proximate to a restart? Is the delay 3 seconds or 30? ...?

Wow. That error has been around a while, and I'm surprised nobody noticed and reported it. It's actually a bug in lexpjs, the parser/executor for expressions... it's sorting the array in place rather than sorting a copy that it then returns. That's not consistent with its spec, and I can easily fix that and get it into the next build. That bug causes other expression values to be modified when they should not be (the effect is pretty obvious in the image, for example, the first price is not 0, so the first night_price should not be 0 either).

If you need to work around it, clone your array before sorting it:

sorted_array = sort( clone( price_array ), $2 - $1 )

I also added a little shortcut there for the sorting function. You don't specifically need to return +/-1 or 0, the sort will look at anything positive, negative, or zero, so simple subtraction can take the place of the more complex conditional expression.

The clone() should not be necessary in future builds.

Here's what it looks like for me now with the lexpjs fix in place (no clone() needed):

Thank you for including a copy of the source array in text form. That was super-helpful and a big time-saver.

Build 25285 now up for docker 64-bit only once again, and intended only for users on this thread. This will be the last development/test build before a general release.

I know you said you restarted Reactor, but humor me... do it again, AND hard-refresh your browser. Then see how the rule behaves.

Can you confirm that you intend your condition group to be "NOT AND". This is a bit confusing, because you are just showing your logic without explanation as to what you intend to do (not how you think it works, how you want it to work).

Also confusing is that the expression and the condition are showing the same value (so the condition seems to be up to date), modulo the reset delay, but I have no reference for time passed there.

Edit:

Also, always look at the logs when something doesn't work as expected. There may be a logged error there that will tell the story without hours of back-and-forth and research.

At the moment, I'm not able to reproduce this.

OK. He just posted 11.4.1 and things are looking better on docker.

About 20 hours ago, the author of zwave-js-ui posted build 11.4.0 of that product, and it contains an error and won't start (at all) under docker. The author is aware and working on a fix. In the meanwhile, stick with 11.3.1 or earlier.

Ref: Issue 4401

@Crille said in [Reactor] Variables not updating correctly in latest-25201-2aa18550:

Looking forward to the bare metal release to try this out.

Shouldn't be too long, unless the group here finds something more, but I'm pretty satisfied with how it's working now. As long as a few others are as well, I'll feel better unleashing it on everyone.

@Crille said in [Reactor] Variables not updating correctly in latest-25201-2aa18550:

If I replace interval with alarm(60) would that also start a new timer everytime meter updates or would I achieve the same behavior as now?

No, if you replace interval/getEntity()..reactor_uptime with alarm(60), you won't get a new timer. Next build, you will be able to call alarm(0) before alarm(60) (i.e. alarm(0), alarm(60), ...) and that will cancel any existing timer first, then start a new timer for 60 seconds. In 25278, there's no way to stop the existing timer.

@therealdb said in [Reactor] Variables not updating correctly in latest-25201-2aa18550:

A global variable named christmas_time, that will be updated every hour/day with dateparts()?

Yes. alarm() will do that.

@Crille said in [Reactor] Variables not updating correctly in latest-25201-2aa18550:

My best example is to check if a getEntity() is not updated in X minutes by comparing time() with value.last_modified but if the entity isn't updated the expression will not evaluate because nothing changed.

Clever! One side effect, though... getEntity() creates an entity dependency for the expression, so that when the entity changes, the expression is re-evaluated. When the expression is re-evaluated, the alarm() timer is not restarted if it is already running, the prior still-running timer is allowed to finish at its originally scheduled time. I'm guessing this may interfere with your intent — if you are using it to detect timeout, you probably want to push the clock out — but I can address that in the next build.

Build 25278 now available, again docker 64-bit only, and only for the folks testing variables/expressions in this thread. Please read this for summary of behavior for global and rule-based variables in this build.

@tunnus already fixed for next build. Thanks for reporting!

Reactor's ZWaveJSController will take the first name it is given and that sticks until you rename it. If you rename it in Reactor, no amount of changing it in ZWave JS will change it in Reactor.

This is by design. It is possible, for example, to use entity names in getEntity() expressions. If Reactor just changed them on its own like HA, that would break those expressions.

By the way, HassController behaves the same way. If the name of a HA entity changes, the corresponding Reactor entity doesn't follow the change. You can see it in the extended attributes of the Reactor entity, but the Reactor entity itself retains the unmodified name.

Deleted entities are marked "dead" in Reactor and will be removed at a later time if they don't reappear. Reactor doesn't immediately remove entities just because the remote hub omits them. Some hubs may not fully enumerate all devices during startup, so removing an entity only to recreate it a few seconds/minutes/hours later would be troublesome. If you're impatient, you can purge dead entities by using the purge_dead_entities action on the Controller's system entity (give it small age limit, like one second; it only acts on entities that are already marked dead).