I find it useful to be able to export RM Legacy rules to RM 5.1 (or other future releases), as opposed to rewriting tens of rules manually for each RM iteration.
Don't you?!
1 Like
Why are you bothering? Unless the rule would be improved by using the new functionality of 5.1, there is no reason to do that. The legacy rules are not going to stop working.
2 Likes
Agree, but I still might need integrating some of the new functionalities into the existing rules (predicates, more complex if/else statements & other fixes).
And, since you put it that way, why bother updating the hub at all (each and every day, as of lately), since all my devices & scenarios are working just fine?!
2 Likes
I've had to upgrade some of my rules as I want to share variables across new and legacy rules. With the move to Hub Variables, this has required some rewriting.
1 Like
6 Likes
It ain't dead for me, "smart" dude! barely woke up..
Yup!
If an update isn't addressing security or stability issues, and doesn't add functionality you want, there's no reason you need to install it immediately. The device that makes your house work is a great candidate for deferred updates. I'm a new-stuff junkie, so I tend to update quickly, but it's smarter to wait. Regressions can really suck.
3 Likes
You didn't get my point, just stumbled upon the brackets..
I solved this issue a while ago by moving my rules logic to a separate server running Node-RED (and Homebridge). While I appreciate the simplicity and self-contained nature of the RM family I find NR to be far more flexible for my use-case.. A lot easier to maintain the rules (sequences) and I can manage the resources myself - adding more memory, hd space, faster processor etc...
The disclaimer here of course is it's not for everyone and the out-of-the-box experience HE provides with RM is generally great for most people especially those who are not interested in diving into the techier side of things.
3 Likes
That's a valid reason to update rules, and it would certainly be nice if legacy rules could be imported, but the reality is that the internals of Rule Machine have changed enough that importing rules is a difficult problem to solve, without enough return on the investment of time and effort for it to make sense for the developers. If they were doing that, we'd get new functionality much more slowly, and the forum would likely be full of people complaining about rules not working right after import.
3 Likes
So..why didn't you say that from the beginning? Smh
1 Like
Because 'don't waste your time replacing legacy rules for no reason' is useful advice. 'The developers aren't going to do that' is just information.
2 Likes
Man, you devs really enjoy arguing over people's reasons, instead of admitting you can't/won't do it
1 Like
I'm not a dev.
1 Like
what about "I still might need integrating some of the new functionalities into the existing rules"...is that readable format?
Thank you for your feedback. This is a topic that has been discussed at length in multiple other threads. See an example below:
9 Likes
Thank you all for your feedback. We have taken your input for future consideration. For now, if you'd like to use the features that 5.1 version has to offer, please build a new rule. Existing rules created with previous versions will continue to run as expected.
