Hey
I had a rule for a 4 button device to map all buttons. Then I realize I will like to have more physical button devices with the same functionality. So I create a virtual button device but with 8 buttons. ad I can map multiple buttons to this virtual one without need to rewrite the complex rule :). I cloned the existing rule and change the real button with virtual one. But now the add button functionality show me I have only 3 buttons when real device has 4 and virtual one has 8. I can't add push action fro 5 button. This is not important because I can create the rule from scratch.
Thanks
Larry
I was able to duplicate this using these steps (some small details don't matter, like the specific number of buttons as long as they're different). The above wasn't entirely clear to me so I wanted to spell it out:
- Create a rule with a Button Device trigger with, say, 2 buttons
- Clone that rule
- In the clone/copy, change the button device to one with more buttons, e.g., 3 buttons.
- Notice that you can't "Add action for button" for any number higher than the number available on the original device.
In fact, I really get the same problem if I omit step 3 and just change the button device in the original rule to something else. I suspect this has something to do with the fact that RM now lets you select multiple button devices but will use the first as a "proxy" for the capabilities and number of buttons for all devices, which apparently holds even if you only have one device and switch it out.
Tagging @bravenel so he aware (or perhaps has more insight), though I'm not saying this is something they'd necessarily be interested in fixing since creating a new rule is a workaround. I'm not sure cloning (which occasionally causes some weirdness like phantom "In Use By" devices) really is an issue here.
1 Like
I guess you've discovered a feature of RM; not sure it rises to the level of 'limitation'. The multiple button devices feature is intended to be used with identical types of button devices, not a mix of different types. Different button device types require independent definition of their actions. The same holds true, by derivation, to cloning a rule with a button device. The cloned rule expects the same type of button device as the original.
We aren't cloning a sheep and then substituting a dog's teeth into the clone to replace the sheep's teeth. Once a sheep, all clones will be sheep.
Would you STOP giving me ideas?! Now I want to find a cloned sheep with dog teeth. LOL
1 Like
In case it wasn't clear, when I tried to replicate this problem, I didn't even have to clone the rule--just swapping out one button device for a different one (and leaving either as the only one selected) resulted in the same behavior. Maybe it could re-check capabilities and number of buttons when only one device is selected and it changes? Again, not saying it's worth "fixing" (I'm sure it's more complicated than that sounds 
) since creating a new rule is a workaround, but just thought I'd point this out.
Yes, I understood this. I will look into the underlying issue. As I said, I think you are reporting on the implemented functionality. It is not a supported intention to be able to swap the type of button device mid-stream.
