EventRunner 5

[Neo Andersson 230]

Jan, i got a bug here

 

Please login or register to see this image.

/monthly_2023_12/image.png.61f6ff6b607fa438c53fe97aa2c4200c.png" />

 

 

Please login or register to see this attachment.

 

 

I haven't noticed this error so far. It might have been there even before upgrade to 0.56 i can't tell for sure.

 

 

 

 

It is working with alarm:armed syntax, so i will use that one

 

Edited December 2, 2023 by Neo Andersson

[jgab 2,641]

Yep, on the first page and a separate tutorial I have advertised that alarm handling is a bit different in ER5 compared to ER4...

 

[Neo Andersson 230]

Jan what is the shortest way to catch a device value change and apply the new value to another device?

Please login or register to see this code.

 

[jgab 2,641]

9 hours ago, Neo Andersson said:

Jan what is the shortest way to catch a device value change and apply the new value to another device?

Please login or register to see this code.

 

Please login or register to see this code.

We need to do the "| true" because device1's value could change to false and then the action would not run...

There exist also :trigger that is a property that triggers on value property change and always return true and is useful for this case. Note that it only works with value property of a device.

Please login or register to see this code.

 

[ChristianSogaard 71]

Hi Jan

 

This is so ODD.

I have disabled Rule 3 in EV5 / QA2047

Please login or register to see this code.

 

Please login or register to see this code.

 

I changed the log text in Rule 3 - and Its NOT listed in the trigger logs

And i also changed the trigger triggered #Key951_2_Pressed2_4_Pressed3 - but it triggers on "triggered #Key951_2_Pressed2_4_Pressed2"

Please login or register to see this code.

I Searched for "Keypad" in EV5 to look for rule duplicates, crazy because there are only 14 rules.

 

Please login or register to see this attachment.

So I guess everyone would say - i have a duplicate Rule some were. I have been posting a couple of days now about this and i cant find the Duplicate.

 

And Why does the logs say its from EV4 QA2047 

Rules:
1:[Rule:1:matrix4Alarm:central & keyPrim => post({type=fmt('%s_%s_%s',keyPrim, matrix4Alarm:central.keyId,matrix4Alarm:central.keyAttribute)}); keyPrim = nil] [enabled]
2:[Rule:2:matrix4Alarm:central & keyPrim==nil => keyPrim=fmt('Key%s_%s_%s',matrix4Alarm,matrix4Alarm:central.keyId,matrix4Alarm:central.keyAttribute); wait(3); keyPrim=nil] [enabled]
3:[Rule:3:#Key951_2_Pressed2_4_Pressed3 => || 0:armed >> 0:armed=false; log('#Disarmed from Matrix as Keypad') || !1:armed >> 1:tryArm ; log('#QA2047 EV5 Rule3 Try to Arm the house from Matrix as Keypad')] [disabled]

 

Why does Rule 3 triggers when its Disabled?

[03.12.2023] [10:14:39] [TRACE] [ER2047]: [Rule:3:112]>> TRUE #device{id=951,val.. -> matrix4Alarm:central & keyPrim==nil =>..
 

So I DELETED QA2047 Event runner 5 from HC3

Please login or register to see this attachment.

 

The I tried Trigger the ALARM again to find to find the duplicate

WTF - how can it still trigger from 2047??

 

Please login or register to see this attachment.

 

Before rebooting my HC3, are there something i should check ?

 

[jgab 2,641]

Yes, it looks like you run 2 ER5 in parallel. In the first log the first 3:110 that logs is actually rule 2 (if we look at the definition)
:110 is also the 110th invocation of the rule which is strange as we have a log of 3:35 later, and the invocations are usually increasing (you can get them in slightly reversed order if you have an 
invocation of a rule that is waiting).

So, my feeling is that the 3:110 is from an another (earlier) instance of ER5...

And yes that is strange. In the past (not ER related) I have seen "ghost QAs" like this - sometimes also we have seen 2 instances running when there is only one...

Can you reboot the HC3 and see if the ghost version goes away?

[ChristianSogaard 71]

1 hour ago, jgab said:

Yes, it looks like you run 2 ER5 in parallel. In the first log the first 3:110 that logs is actually rule 2 (if we look at the definition)
:110 is also the 110th invocation of the rule which is strange as we have a log of 3:35 later, and the invocations are usually increasing (you can get them in slightly reversed order if you have an 
invocation of a rule that is waiting).

So, my feeling is that the 3:110 is from an another (earlier) instance of ER5...

And yes that is strange. In the past (not ER related) I have seen "ghost QAs" like this - sometimes also we have seen 2 instances running when there is only one...

Can you reboot the HC3 and see if the ghost version goes away?

Jan ...

i rebooted, and imported back my EV5 with alarm

Now it works 🙏.

 

Thank you for assisting me on this, this was a crazy error.

[jgab 2,641]

1 minute ago, ChristianSogaard said:

Jan ...

i rebooted, and imported back my EV5 with alarm

Now it works 🙏.

 

Thank you for assisting me on this, this was a crazy error.

Well, hopefully it's not going to be so frequent. I've seen it 1-2 times the last 12 months, and it was not ER...

[ChristianSogaard 71]

On 11/29/2023 at 12:23 PM, jgab said:

I don't see that problem when arming partitions..., some more details?

 

Well, partition 0 is the house/home so that name is given. To get the name from a partition id you need an helper function

(I may build something like it into ER5 in the next version...)

 

Please login or register to see this code.

 

Hi Jan 
Wondering if you decided for the helper function, to get the name from a partition id ? 

[jgab 2,641]

17 minutes ago, ChristianSogaard said:

Hi Jan 
Wondering if you decided for the helper function, to get the name from a partition id ? 

Yes, it's called :partition and returns the partition structure where you can access the name.

Ex

Please login or register to see this code.

In next version - cleaning up some other stuff before I push it....

[ChristianSogaard 71]

3 minutes ago, jgab said:

Yes, it's called :partition and returns the partition structure where you can access the name.

Ex

Please login or register to see this code.

In next version - cleaning up some other stuff before I push it....

Cool - and that would allow me something like - <user>:msg = Partition.Name ..  "is armed"

[jgab 2,641]

5 minutes ago, ChristianSogaard said:

Cool - and that would allow me something like - <user>:msg = Partition.Name ..  "is armed"

Yes,  <user>:msg = 2:partition.name ++  " is armed"

[Neo Andersson 230]

6 hours ago, jgab said:

Please login or register to see this code.

We need to do the "| true" because device1's value could change to false and then the action would not run...

There exist also :trigger that is a property that triggers on value property change and always return true and is useful for this case. Note that it only works with value property of a device.

Please login or register to see this code.

 

Jan this syntax is a monster.. Customer has 120 buttons all together, each one controlling different devices. So far i used to create two rules for 1 button.One for true and one for false values.

Now i only need 120 as i can handle both TRUE and FALSE results.

If i was only able to somehow connect buttons to devices in a way that i can use that reference in the rule, i would need only 1 !!!!! rule, but unfortunatelly it doesnt work. We talked about this a few weeks ago, and i think you mentioned, 

that we cant use device IDs inside a table in that way, so i am just curious, what else workaround may exist for this?

 

Idea is

 

Please login or register to see this code.

 

 

 

Edited December 3, 2023 by Neo Andersson

[jgab 2,641]

1 hour ago, Neo Andersson said:

Jan this syntax is a monster.. Customer has 120 buttons all together, each one controlling different devices. So far i used to create two rules for 1 button.One for true and one for false values.

Now i only need 120 as i can handle both TRUE and FALSE results.

If i was only able to somehow connect buttons to devices in a way that i can use that reference in the rule, i would need only 1 !!!!! rule, but unfortunatelly it doesnt work. We talked about this a few weeks ago, and i think you mentioned, 

that we cant use device IDs inside a table in that way, so i am just curious, what else workaround may exist for this?

 

Idea is

 

Please login or register to see this code.

 

 

 

 

Hmm, I think that was a discussion we had for ER4, and I promised it would work in ER5...

and I actually prepared the ER5 parser to handle it, but never enabled it. But now I have.

In ER5 v0.58 that I just pushed you can initialise an array like

Please login or register to see this code.

 

[Neo Andersson 230]

29 minutes ago, jgab said:

 

Hmm, I think that was a discussion we had for ER4, and I promised it would work in ER5...

and I actually prepared the ER5 parser to handle it, but never enabled it. But now I have.

In ER5 v0.58 that I just pushed you can initialise an array like

Please login or register to see this code.

 

gonna test it and come back to you

[Neo Andersson 230]

6 minutes ago, Neo Andersson said:

gonna test it and come back to you

This is just incredible...It is working. Yesterday i had 240 rules. Now i have a 1 single rule. Incredible...Thanks

[ChristianSogaard 71]

11 minutes ago, Neo Andersson said:

This is just incredible...It is working. Yesterday i had 240 rules. Now i have a 1 single rule. Incredible...Thanks

PLease share a little more what your idea is, perhaps we can learn ?

[Neo Andersson 230]

3 minutes ago, ChristianSogaard said:

PLease share a little more what your idea is, perhaps we can learn ?

 

My customer has all together 120 buttons (relays) / 5 buttons on each wall switch. Every buttons controls different device. Usually turnON and Off actions. So far I had to create a rule for every single button relay state change, and act on the desired device, now i need only create a table of buttons and devices, and use one single line of code, that you can see above. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[ChristianSogaard 71]

4 hours ago, ChristianSogaard said:

Cool - and that would allow me something like - <user>:msg = Partition.Name ..  "is armed"

 

Jan, you helped create this rule

Please login or register to see this code.

 

I tried copy the name/roomname part to this rule 

Please login or register to see this code.

Im getting - bad argument #1 to 'f' (table expected, got boolean)

Please login or register to see this code.

would you help again ?

[ChristianSogaard 71]

1 minute ago, Neo Andersson said:

 

My customer has all together 120 buttons (relays) / 5 buttons on each wall switch. Every buttons controls different device. Usually turnON and Off actions. So far I had to create a rule for every single button relay state change, and act on the desired device, now i need only create a table of buttons and devices, and use one single line of code, that you can see above. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thank you for sharing - i have around 25 of these 

Please login or register to see this link.

 with 4 buttons (with 3 push) on each. Im doing similar mapping on each button, with Jans EV5. 
So i can probably re-use what you guys has created. 

I already have the HT implemented