EventRunner 5

[Neo Andersson 230]

@jgab Jan it is now even worse. There must be something..

I have tried quickly start screenrecording as it started to happen, right after upgrade. Fails indications jumping from 600 to 20 000 then ack to 0. So do the errors from 0 to 12 then back..

 

[jgab 2,641]

34 minutes ago, Neo Andersson said:

@jgab Jan it is now even worse. There must be something..

I have tried quickly start screenrecording as it started to happen, right after upgrade. Fails indications jumping from 600 to 20 000 then ack to 0. So do the errors from 0 to 12 then back..

 

 

Yes, but you see that it's 2 competing version of the QA updating the  UI label. One with invocations less than 100 and one with invocations greater than 20000. Each grows incrementally between the switches.

When @ChristianSogaard had the problem he had to restart the HC3 to make it go away 😕 

 

It seems like my doppelganger detection didn't work 😕 - or did you update a QA that already had a doppelganger?

[Neo Andersson 230]

11 minutes ago, jgab said:

 

Yes, but you see that it's 2 competing version of the QA updating the  UI label. One with invocations less than 100 and one with invocations greater than 20000. Each grows incrementally between the switches.

When @ChristianSogaard had the problem he had to restart the HC3 to make it go away 😕 

 

It seems like my doppelganger detection didn't work 😕 - or did you update a QA that already had a doppelganger?

I just updated to version 0.90 and right after i started to record. I did nothing else. 

[Neo Andersson 230]

Also i am getting warnings about child devices..Is that okay?

 

Please login or register to see this attachment.

[jgab 2,641]

26 minutes ago, Neo Andersson said:

I just updated to version 0.90 and right after i started to record. I did nothing else. 

No, then you updated an already "duplicated" QA....

13 minutes ago, Neo Andersson said:

Also i am getting warnings about child devices..Is that okay?

 

Please login or register to see this attachment.

Np, thats bad. Is this the QA that already had the problem?

[Neo Andersson 230]

3 minutes ago, jgab said:

No, then you updated an already "duplicated" QA....

Np, thats bad. Is this the QA that already had the problem?

Yes, and after HC restart

Just now, Neo Andersson said:

Yes, and after HC restart

And the same on other systems. Almost every system has the same simptoms

[Neo Andersson 230]

@jgab Jan, i dont know if this is related. I am running ER5 on 5 systems + my own at home. All the problematic systems are those with child devices, and all these are big systems. The smaller ones, that dont have child devices, did not show any error so far. But this must not be a proper proof of anything, as those systems without erros are really small ones. But maybe this can lead you to find the answers. The big systems are having all the same symptoms. Changing numbers on UI, so as per your answer, this indicates multiple instances. After restart, the multiple instances seem to disappier, however, the warnings about child devices are still there.

[Neo Andersson 230]

@jgab Jan, another inexplicable behaviour. This rule was working in all my systems right from the beggining. Now this threw this error. I am lost totally now. Or am i missed something?

 

Please login or register to see this attachment.

[jgab 2,641]

1 hour ago, Neo Andersson said:

@jgab Jan, i dont know if this is related. I am running ER5 on 5 systems + my own at home. All the problematic systems are those with child devices, and all these are big systems. The smaller ones, that dont have child devices, did not show any error so far. But this must not be a proper proof of anything, as those systems without erros are really small ones. But maybe this can lead you to find the answers. The big systems are having all the same symptoms. Changing numbers on UI, so as per your answer, this indicates multiple instances. After restart, the multiple instances seem to disappier, however, the warnings about child devices are still there.

child devices is a theory I have, but I really tried to stress a QA with children with updates etc and I couldn't make it "duplicate".... But I will continue to look into this.

Edited December 20, 2023 by jgab

[jgab 2,641]

15 minutes ago, Neo Andersson said:

@jgab Jan, another inexplicable behaviour. This rule was working in all my systems right from the beggining. Now this threw this error. I am lost totally now. Or am i missed something?

 

Please login or register to see this attachment.

fibaro.sequence doesn't exist in ER5 anymore (fibaroExtra was removed)

You can add it yourself

Please login or register to see this code.

 

[Neo Andersson 230]

@jgab Jan is this normal? 3 x initializing?

 

Please login or register to see this image.

/monthly_2023_12/image.png.1e6ee0feb325c5a8b86d2d42d272561a.png" />

[Neo Andersson 230]

@jgab 

 

1. Jan, if you find any clue, what ot do with those CHILD class missing warnings, please let me know. Should i aviod childs at all? That would be really bad for me...

2. Just for better understanding, please check on the picture, 

How can my rule 41. be instantiated twice in 1 second, when this rule should trigger when it rains for 3 minutes? 

 

Please login or register to see this attachment.

 

Thanks

[Neo Andersson 230]

@jgab Jan here is what i found on cystomers system.

I have delted the complete ER5. Reinstalled it. Checked the logs, and saw this

 

Please login or register to see this attachment.

 

 

everything seems normal

 

then i entered into code, because i needed to change somtehing. Saved the QA and got this

 

Please login or register to see this attachment.

 

is it okay? In second wondow i have two initializings

Edited December 20, 2023 by Neo Andersson

[jgab 2,641]

21 minutes ago, Neo Andersson said:

@jgab Jan here is what i found on cystomers system.

I have delted the complete ER5. Reinstalled it. Checked the logs, and saw this

 

Please login or register to see this attachment.

 

 

everything seems normal

 

then i entered into code, because i needed to change somtehing. Saved the QA and got this

 

Please login or register to see this attachment.

 

is it okay? In second wondow i have two initializings

 

No, it's not normal. 

However, 

"Initializing EventRunner5...." tells us that it tries to start up.

"..EventRunner5 initialised" tells us that it actually has managed to start up.

So what you see is 2 tries and 1 success to startup.

The reason for more than 1 try is that it thought it detected someone else running.

 

However, here my logic seems not to work. The code was designed so the QA should be disabled, but that doesn't work... Very strange.

 

Anyway, @ChristianSogaard seems to not have managed with just reinstalling the QA (was that correctly understod @ChristianSogaard?), but was forced to restart the HC3 to get the zombie process terminating.

 

In any case, my attempt (and code) to fight doppelgangers doesn't seem to work - back to the drawing board. And in any case this is just fighting the symptom - not identifying the root cause so it can be avoided in the first place...

 

I think it is a little more complicated than just that it has child QAs... but the child instantiating errors you get can be a piece of the puzzle. Will continue tomorrow and look into this.

[Neo Andersson 230]

4 minutes ago, jgab said:

 

No, it's not normal. 

However, 

"Initializing EventRunner5...." tells us that it tries to start up.

"..EventRunner5 initialised" tells us that it actually has managed to start up.

So what you see is 2 tries and 1 success to startup.

The reason for more than 1 try is that it thought it detected someone else running.

 

However, here my logic seems not to work. The code was designed so the QA should be disabled, but that doesn't work... Very strange.

 

Anyway, @ChristianSogaard seems to not have managed with just reinstalling the QA (was that correctly understod @ChristianSogaard?), but was forced to restart the HC3 to get the zombie process terminating.

 

In any case, my attempt (and code) to fight doppelgangers doesn't seem to work - back to the drawing board. And in any case this is just fighting the symptom - not identifying the root cause so it can be avoided in the first place...

 

I think it is a little more complicated than just that it has child QAs... but the child instantiating errors you get can be a piece of the puzzle. Will continue tomorrow and look into this.

Jan, just one more note

After i deleted a ER5 QA, and uploaded a complete new one, the triggers from that deleted one seem to be triggered. (at least one trigger with @19:35 => ... has been triggered for sure) So i am eagerly waiting for your solution, mostly because of customers's systems.

And regarding the disabled QA...yes, i have noticed it. If i manually disable the QA, even if i completely commented out all the main file, it still runs the rules...can not tell if all of them, but certainly some of them were triggered..

Thanks

[jgab 2,641]

Ok, the doppelganger detection code caused a problem with children.

I have pushed v0.92 that fixes the child initialisation error @Neo Andersson recently got.
 

So, it may mean that quickAppChildren is not a piece of the puzzle. @ChristianSogaard problem beginning of December was similar but he didn't have any quickAppChildren from ER5 as I understand (?)

[ChristianSogaard 71]

1 hour ago, jgab said:

Ok, the doppelganger detection code caused a problem with children.

I have pushed v0.92 that fixes the child initialisation error @Neo Andersson recently got.
 

So, it may mean that quickAppChildren is not a piece of the puzzle. @ChristianSogaard problem beginning of December was similar but he didn't have any quickAppChildren from ER5 as I understand (?)

Correct, - No quickAppChildren in EV5 in my installation

[minsad79 19]

hi jgab

Operating in ER4

  TimeOfDayQA = 2108
   rule([[states = {
     {label="Morning", name='morning'},
     {label="Day", name='day'},
     {label="Evening", name='evening'},
     {label="Night", name='night'},
     {label="Dawn", name='dawn'},
   }
   ]])

   --rule("TimeOfDayQA:positions=states; if TimeOfDayQA:position=='' then TimeOfDayQA:position='day' end")
  
   rule("@sunrise+00:30 => TimeOfDayQA:position='morning'")
   rule("@12:00 => TimeOfDayQA:position='day'")
   rule("@sunset-01:00 => TimeOfDayQA:position='evening'")
   rule("@22:00 => TimeOfDayQA:position='night'")
   rule("@05:00 => TimeOfDayQA:position='dawn'")
  
   rule("TimeOfDayQA:position=='morning' => log('morning')")
   rule("TimeOfDayQA:position=='day' => log('day')")
   rule("TimeOfDayQA:position=='evening' => log('evening')")
   rule("TimeOfDayQA:position=='night' => log('night')")
   rule("TimeOfDayQA:position=='dawn' => log('dawn')")

It doesn't run

Have the rules changed?

thank you always

[Neo Andersson 230]

22 hours ago, jgab said:

 

There is a new version v0.9 of ER5.

-New logic for discovering "Doppelgangers...". There is a 3s delay at ER5 startup when it says "Initialising EventRunner5..." etc. It's a delay to discover if a copy is already running. It will then log a message and disable the QA. 
If there is a defined function fibaro.doppelganger() it will be called before QA disabled. Could be used for notifications etc.

 

-When rules have errors at runtime (not setup time), an event will be posted. The event can be triggered on and used for notifications.

Ex.

Please login or register to see this code.

 

Jan, this error catcher is absolutelly a game changer for me. It is brilliant. Having so many installations, now i can follow the problems, and identify them quickly. However, the catcher logs out the text in incomprehensible format. All the &nbsp and \n stuff is written out and everything is melted together. Sorry i forgot to snap a picture, but i think you know what does this mean.

I am using it like this to get msg to my phone 

Please login or register to see this code.

 

Edited December 21, 2023 by Neo Andersson

[ChristianSogaard 71]

On 12/19/2023 at 10:39 AM, jgab said:

Thanks, that's a bug - a bit deep - functions waiting in some cases causes problem for functions coming afterwards because they don't restore stuff in an expected way... anyway, I have an idea how to fix it... back soon...

Hi Jan

 

It seems there still is a bug on this one

 

Please login or register to see this code.

 

If I select YES - 1:tryArm runs and works

If I select No - i get a QA Crash, BUT only the first time the rule runs. Second time no problem, and then again the first time after QA restart

 

[21.12.2023] [13:14:07] [ERROR] [QUICKAPP2059]: QuickApp crashed
[21.12.2023] [13:14:07] [ERROR] [QUICKAPP2059]: Unknown error occurred: