EDIT! Bruce, I think the problem is with the evaluation of simple conditions in my actions, not the rule evaluation as I initially suspected, please disregard for now. Thanks, @Ryan780 and @eric.dalquist
While 2.1.1.114 does appear to fix the problem I reported in 2.1.1.112 about RM 3 not subscribing to presence states correctly, there does appear to be a new issue with this build.
I have created an example rule and attached screenshots of logging and application states. Jist of the problem is that it appears conditions are only evaluating a single event even if there are supposed to be several events considered (AND). I haven't confirmed it yet, but it appears this may affect more than just conditions but also conditional actions.
As you can see from the logging, the rule is only evaluating the state or first variable and not the mode, motion or other variable states. Excuse the error in the second condition of the rule, but I don't think it makes any difference for what I'm trying to show (the third condition should have been mode is sleep not sleep mode deactivate vMotion active).
But it doesn't have to evaluate the second. If the first statement of an AND expression if false, then the whole thing is false, correct? Why bother even checking the rest of the conditions? It appears to me that the overall rule is always evaluated correctly as false, is it not?
No in this example the rule isn't even considering the state of the motion detector, mode, or other variables, it seems to only be evaluating on the state of the variable "Time-Of-Day". Since I'm using "AND" in the rule it should be using all the states within the sub rule as part of the condition.
I have MANY rules that are no longer working because they are evaluating incorrectly after installing 2.1.1.114.
Okay...but do you have an example of one that wasn't evaluated correctly? Because this rule appears to be evaluating correctly.
because that isn't the first part of any of your statements. If the first part of an AND is false, the whole thing is false, correct? Why would it need to even consider the rest? Move the motion sensor up in the statement to be the first one and see how the logs change.
Ryan I think you are correct, the heart of the matter is the bug that @eric.dalquist linked to, it's not the rule evaluation that's the problem, but rather the actions I have setup which do use simple conditions which are executing regardless of their truth.
The way my rules are setup it appeared my rules weren't evaluating correctly and I guess I haven't enabled the logging recently to see how the rules are evaluated.
So yes, if any condition of a group of conditions is false there is no reason for the rest of the conditions to be evaluated!
