ts1234
April 4, 2026, 3:53pm
1
This may make zero difference...but just wondering if any approach to do this is less CPU intensive.
If THIS LIGHT has been on for 30 minutes turn it off
Start a counter when it turns on and turn it off after 30 minutes
Some other type of do/while approach.
I don't want to trigger the light on with a motion sensor and turn it off when motion stops
THX
jwjr
April 4, 2026, 4:34pm
3
I always include the word FAILSAFE in the name of a rule like that, so I know at a glance what it does.
One of my examples:
1 Like
jlv
April 4, 2026, 6:09pm
4
I use auto_off (available in HPM).
Auto Off
A Hubitat Parent/Child app that turns off your devices after they have been on some time. This App is a "clone and update" of MForander's excellent Auto Off app.
Details
The app allows you to create child apps to individually select switches you want to be turned off automatically.
Import App Link
Parent Code
Child Code
There are two notable differences between this pair of Apps and the original App from MForander: It's a parent/Child version, where each monitored switch (or dimmer)β¦
ts1234
April 4, 2026, 6:16pm
5
Interesting I will take a look at this!
ts1234
April 4, 2026, 6:17pm
6
I'm guessing this approach is just fine...and straight forward.
The best way is the one that makes the most sense to you.
You donβt have to worry about the hubβs CPU load for an automation like the one you described, however you decide to implement it exactly.
1 Like
ts1234
April 4, 2026, 9:49pm
8
SO, whether the hub is waiting for an event or waiting on a timer it really doesn't make a difference to the CPU? Right?
I'm being a little overboard here...but if you had 20 different rules doing this...is that still true. IE - If another major/large rule ran during this period there would be no impact to processing? There would be no (and I forgot the exact wording) "multiple rules running" at the same time? ...as long as the others are all in a waiting state.