@bravenel Hey Bruce! Rule Machine has been awesome… Once again… Thanks. I am able to get so much more value now.
I have a request/suggestion. In the “Trigger these actions when true” section, it will help a lot if an option can be added for “turn off lights” where if the lights are already ON then dont turn them off. It could be a switch to enable this. I can see a lot of use cases where this can help. Thoughts?
This release integrates Triggers into Rule Machine, and supports Rule-Trigger interactions. Complete instructions are provided. When you upgrade, your existing Rules will all still work. Triggers created with Trigger Happy are not compatible, and would need to be redone for the integrated app.
He’s talking about checking the device current state prior to sending a new command.
IE, if it’s already on, don’t send another on command.
I see both sides of this argument.
If ST was able to guarantee message/command delivery/execution, there would be no need to fire the same command again.
For the most part in practice, issued commands get executed, but they do get dropped as well.
So, which way do you go, risk a command getting lost?, or chew up a few extra cycles on the back end.
@bravenel so I tested the SHM with triggers and rules today. In triggers, I have it set so that when everyone of my presence sensors leaves it arms. However, it still arms when even one of us leaves.
In rules, it lets me set the condition for true but the SHM state isn’t an option in false.
Fantastic! The Rules Machine allowed me to greatly simplify what I was doing. For the wish list, I’d like the ON/OFF delay times to be in second increments.
Oops! I seem to have broken something. I tried to install your latest update and managed to break it. I went to the IDE copy of Rules, deleted the old code, then pasted the new code in, but don’t see any way to compile it. I tried to delete the old ‘Rule’ and start from scratch, but it wouldn’t let me. Help!
Seconds won’t happen, as it is not supported by SmartThings.
You need to update Rule Machine in the IDE, from Github, then save and Publish for me. You also need to update Rule and Trigr in the IDE, from Github, but don’t publish them.
If you don’t have any rules, you can just delete it from your IDE and start over. If you do have rules already, I think you will have to always publish it in the future to get new releases.
There’s no harm in that, but the only way to delete it is to uninstall rule machine completely from the mobile app, then delete it from the ide, then re-create and save (without publishing it) in the IDE.
Seems I’ve really made a mess of things. I tried deleting it from the mobile app and get a ‘Unexpected Error’ error. Try to leave things and they are and back my way out and I get a ‘Failed to save page: SelectRule’ error. Seems I’ve really made a mess of things. I spent many hours tweaking my rules and finally got things working properly. When I switched from the V1 to V2 hub, 90% of my stuff stopped working; I want back to square one and built it up again from the very beginning. Now it seems Im back to square one. If I didn’t have so much money invested in the hardware I’d just pack it in.
If you haven’t created a bunch of Rules, you can go into the IDE and delete everything and start over. Go to My Locations, then bottom of the page click on List SmartApps. Then at the top of the next page click on EDIT. Then you can uninstall the app there.
When I accidentally published ‘Rules’ I would not see any of the new functionality in the app. I had to delete and reinstall ‘Rules’ for it to work properly again.
may just be my setup… but in the integrated version when I select “Create New Trigger…” I get the spinner and then nothing happens. Things seem to work fine when I select “Create New Rule…”.
[quote=“Mike_Maxwell, post:822, topic:28730”]
So, which way do you go, risk a command getting lost?, or chew up a few extra cycles on the back end. [/quote]
Neither. SmartThings should prioritize allowing smartapps to run locally. Beside providing an update incentive for those still on v1 hub, it would make this question moot.