I kept stating "Why couldn't RM (the app) check", I misspoke. What I meant is why couldn't the platform check. I don't know how HE is architected so I don't know where the check would be done.
I guess what I was thinking is why couldn't the platform check with the app prior to the <<App List function being executed. I click <<App List, platform asks app to check itself for errors, if it reports errors it cancels leaving the page. Maybe it's not possible within HE but it's something I have my code testers check for.
The only way the GUI could prevent you from clicking on a link that you're not supposed to is to remove the link from the page while you're editing a rule. And I like that they're there because you can always right click and open it in another tab without a problem.
Also, in this case, if you were to navigate back to the triggers definition page, you would see that it picks up right where you left off, allowing you to complete the definition of the trigger.
I created this one by miss-clicking the same as you did:
But if you click on the triggers, this is what you are presented with:
It picks up right where you left off to pick the device to add back to the trigger. If you finish it off correctly and come back out by clicking done, the trigger is fixed.
That's the big difference between miss-clicking and removing a device. If you miss click, you can end up fixing it and it won't let you do anything else in that section till you finish off what you started. That's not true if you remove a device. That ghost is there for good.
Everything you stated is correct. I have been playing with RM for the past two weeks doing stupid things to see what would "break" or cause issues in the app. The reason I am doing this is because my neighbor, who is not technical whatsoever, saw my setup and wanted to put one in his house. I had him create a few rules and configure some apps. During this process he ended up in a situation like this. He got frustrated and stated he wouldn't get something that "wasn't user friendly" his words not mine. HE lost a customer. Since I had a background in software testing, that was nearly 20 years ago, I figured I would play around and see what other stuff I could find. I am purposely doing things that an 'educated' user wouldn't do. I'm just not going to point these things out anymore. It's not worth the bickering.
I think this is exactly the type of thing that SHOULD be done. No offense to Hubitat staff, as I appreciate the work they do and have done, but there are many things that could be better. Hubitat is extremely powerful, and it works well overall, but there are a few things that need some cleanup that would make the user experience better for both new and experienced users alike. The documentation is one thing that is often out of date, or does not match latest changes. Some of the wording/layout in the GUI is another.
It is not always apparent when, how, or where to do things in multiple places in Hubitat, especially for new or less technical users. Rule Machine is one example, but even Simple Lighting and Motion Lighting have some really confusing or ambiguous wordings. More popups, warnings, and careful wording are helpful especially if you aren't constantly mucking about in the software.
If I had one suggestion for Hubitat staff, it would be to skip one feature update (no new drivers, no new apps etc) every 3-4 months (quarterly), and instead just do GUI cleanup and documentation updates/improvements. If they were open source or had unlimited staff like other hubs, they could keep the pace they have been doing for the last couple years with adding new things. They don't have those resources, so maybe fewer updates are warranted at this point in time.
I am just reading this topic and I have something similar that happened. I have excluded some devices from hubitat but not the devices in a particular rule that stopped working last week. When I pulled up the rule to see what was going on I discovered that the devices were missing from the rule. They are still in hubitat but they have disappeared from the rule.
Actually, it looks like the device is gone! I didn't exclude this device. I wasn't even around the device when I did the exclude. I wonder how it excluded it without me pushing the button on it?
