I’m not sure if this is an intentional change, but setting up a conditional on an automation’s private boolean in a rule’s actions like as so
no longer appears to be available as an option in RM 5.1 (would be after presence):
When I need this type of logic (e.g., for “debouncing”) I go to a rule that already has this check, export the clipboard, and import the if statement into the new rule. It then works fine.
I note that the private boolean is still available as a required expression:
That is interesting. I haven’t created a new rule using PB in a while.
I can confirm that it is not an option when creating a new conditional action using 2.5.0.159
However, it is available as a selection in the create conditions.
So you could create it there and then you should be able to see it as a condition when create a new conditional action.
I was just about to post the same thing as @CaptWoody, I thought that was an option as well.
I found the same, you can create a condition for the PB and then use it. I don't think I have had to do that in the past?
Tagging @support_team
One caveat: I believe you cannot choose defined expressions with the “Simple Conditional Action” construct. I think that’s why I do the export/import for this use case—so I can have one line that exits, rather than the indent and trailing ENDIF with the “IF expression THEN” where you can pick a defined expression.
Oh, cool. Still discovering features all the time. Thanks!
Wow, I tried several years ago to use PB from another rule as a condition and couldn't figure it out. I didn't think it was even a supported use. Now I see it was possible all along?! (Except maybe now, again?)
No, the condition is only to test for the local private boolean (“lpb”). The option to test the lpb is just missing when going through the add action interface.
