That's what I've tended to do for these types of situations, for the same reasoning. There's an argument for both approaches, of course, subjective decision.
For example, my Vacation rules that have required expression for a "Vacation" virtual switch to be turned on:
Well that is what your original rule with the pause rules showed.
With a required expression the rule will only trigger if the required expression is true.
The required expression in your latest screenshot has the private Boolean True OR company coming over is on. So, if either of those things are true the rule will trigger.
It should be, if I understand what you mean want, private Boolean True AND company coming over is off.
This rule only runs when the Company Coming Over turns on, so the ELSE statement will never be executed. The trigger should be Company Coming over changes, or two separate triggers, one when it comes on and one when it goes off.
The required expression is mis formed. You need to edit it and remove the extra OR. This happens to me quite often when editing required expressions. Its a bug in the editor, might not cause any issue but I would get rid of it. Is there supposed to be a third ORed expression?
*****okay I got it figured out! I can walk through the bathroom motion and the lights stay on they do not time out after I leave! Thank you for your help
Your rule to pause and resume the other rules is badly written.
The rule will only trigger if "Company Coming Over" turns on, but then you have a defined expression to check if "Company Coming Over" is on, before the rule will begin executing the actions. The required expression is redundant.
Your first action is to check if the "Company Coming Over" is on, but it has to be on, because that is the condition that triggered the rule. So the IF statement is not required.
Then your actions check if "Company Coming Over" is off, and if it is, it will resume all the other rules. But that will never happen because this rule only runs (triggers) when "Company Coming Over" is on. So the ELSE is useless.
You can either follow the advice of @terminal3, or to create one rule to pause the other rules, and a 2nd rule to resume the other rules.
This is how the rule was working and with Company Coming Over it passed the motion. I removed the expression. With Company Coming Over ON, And I tested it for over 40 minutes and it kept the motion bypassed.
This what I had but than I deleted the screenshot because I thought it was wrong. Is this right? Do I still the it written like below? With “Changed”. I am going to test it right now. It is 7:14 pm I will drop the log down at the bottom.
No, you should not use your trigger as part your required expression.
A required expression must be true in order for a rule to trigger. As written, Monday through Friday the Company Coming Over switch has no effect on the rule, because you ORed the two expressions. So as long as it is Monday through Friday it doesn't matter what the Company Coming over switch is set to. On Saturday and Sunday the rule will trigger if the Company Coming over switch is on. Since it's not Monday through Friday that part of the expression is false, so it will only trigger if the Switch is on. I don't believe that is what you want.
If you want this rule to only run on Monday through Friday while Company Coming over is off, do the following:
Change the required expression to AND not OR, and Company Coming Over needs to be off not on.
Required expression:
Day Monday .. Friday AND
Company Coming Over is off
{Rule can only be triggered when it's Monday through Friday AND if the switch is off.}
Also remove Company Coming Over as a trigger, the presence sensor should be your only trigger.
“So as long as it is Monday through Friday it doesn't matter what the Company Coming over switch is set to. On Saturday and Sunday the rule will trigger if the Company Coming over switch is on.”
· Master Bath Light
· Master Overhead Light
These should never go OFF when Company switch is active (On or Off) I always had it set to ON to bypass rules.
You seem to be jumping back and forth between different rules, this latest rule you posted is not the one I said needed changes. You should re-read my last post and look at the rule I was talking about. I put your screenshot in my post so you would know which one I was referring to.
This rule does need the switch as its trigger and does not need a required expression.
