Originally for rules triggered by switches I used to use two seperate rules, one triggered by off and the other by on. I am now using the trigger "changed" and using if + else statements for the state change as actions. I started this as it reduces the amount of rules in my rm list.
Sometimes I need seperate rules though as other rules can "run" the actions of the off rule, where if I used the single rule with "changed" ad the trigger then it's harder to execute just the off state part of the rule.
Just after the experts thoughts on this. Is there any benefit other than reducing the length of the list of rules to have trigger state as "changed" rather than seperate on/off rules?
There is undoubtedly an answer to your question as to which is more efficient, but it is hard to imagine that such a difference is anything remotely resembling significant in this case.
Which of the approaches makes more sense to you? Which one do you think would be easier to maintain? Whichever you think is the better approach, do it that way. Let the computer do the work.
there's no benefit to reducing the list other than your own benefit of easily finding stuff.
if possible, use RM as a last resort. using things such as Simple Automations has a lower overhead on the hub
Thanks for the clarification.
Hmm maybe I should have asked this question much earlier as my rules are all mature now, as in the house is all up and running. Maybe I look into simple automations for future logic.. I have never considered it, not even the button controller. Been a Rule Machine addict (I came from tasker via home assistant to hubitat so rule/task writing is where my head was already at)
i've actually found myself transitioning some of my door contact SA to RM to help with multiple instances running