I'm trying to tailor an RM rule based on the specific trigger (there would only be minor differences in the actions, so I'd rather not create a bunch of individual rules that are mostly the same).
I'm using Inovelli Red series switches, so they are basically just a bunch of buttons. In my case, I'd like 4 presses up to act slightly differently than 4 presses down (with one action simply being inverted). The problem is that while %device% returns the correct switch name in the rule, %value% only returns the number "4" (or whatever button number I use) ... Not whether the button was triggered by a "pushed" or "held" event; which is the part I'm most interested in, and are received as distinct triggers.
I can only find reference to %device%, %value%, %time%, and %date% ... is there another variable that may contain what I need?
(still running 2.3.0.124)
Thanks
You could look at %text%. Open the device, and show us the Events from the button at the top of the page.
I tried including %text% in the log string shown, but the variable was empty.
Are these the events you mean?...
Yep, you don't have a way to distinguish between those in a single rule. What's wrong with two rules?
There's nothing wrong with two rules, but it's actually going to be more like 8 or 10 when I'm done since it will apply to multiple button combinations ... I was just trying to be more concise since all of the rules are mostly carbon copies with only finite differences; and one rule with a few conditionals seemed like a cleaner solution.
I suppose I could do it with two rules total though ... one triggered only by buttons held, and the other only by buttons pressed. Unless HE prefers a greater number of simple rules over smaller number of more complex ones (hadn't considered that).
That's the sort of situation where a custom app might be neater.
It's not pretty, and I'm not sure its worth the leg work here, but since the Inovelli switches indicate in last event with a representative number of ▲ or ▼ icons; I was able to use those in an if condition with contains, in such a way that I could consolidate all the logic into one rule (for anyone else that's looking).
It works fine with the rule I flushed it out on to handle opening/closing a couple garage doors, but I'm not sure how well it would scale to a more complex rule given the amount of conditional logic that ends up being involved. Simple open/closed, not to bad.
