I think this will end up being a paid application in the future.
It's not so much a "what would it look like" problem so much as it is a "they have to live within the UI framework and App framework that exists within HE or undertake a massive effort of rewriting the whole thing." I believe that's pretty much the roadblock
1 Like
To add to what @dman2306 wrote, here's Bruce's description of the issues with "sharing" RM rules:
Also want to point out that there are ways to share automations that use Hubitat devices (for example, if one were using Node-RED instead of Rule Machine, or webCoRE for that matter).
4 Likes
I remember at a previous job I’d ask an engineer “is this possible?” And they’d say “of course, it’s a small matter of code”
Then we’d laugh and talk about if that meant 5 mins or 3 years. Anything is possible. Just depends on how much time and priority it has.
1 Like
Yup, as a developer I'd always say "given enough time and money, I can build you anything you want short of a time machine." Sometimes that time and money was 3 years and $5 million and then the answer became a resounding "no"
3 Likes
Well said. True about many human endeavors.
I think it could help a lot of new users if old threads could be stickied, because I find myself saying many times over just what you said above.
When another platform like Wink has a mass exodus (which also occurred in the run-up to Iris being shut down), there’s invariably a lot of new ideas and opinions about how hubitat stacks up currently, and what users would like to see in the future. New perspectives are valuable.
The frustrating thing is that many of the ideas are not new, and when the opinions lack the context of what’s already been discussed in the past, and sometimes even clearly explained by hubitat staff directly, the conversations can get repetitive, or even deteriorate into an oldie vs. newbie thing.
This community has remained one of the least toxic online forums I’ve ever participated in, which is great and one of the many reasons I love being here!
@bobbyD what do you think about allowing mods to sticky some of the more notable forum posts that new users would find helpful and informative?
1 Like
Generally agree this could be helpful, but couldn’t it also cement “this is the way things are, don’t bring them up again” kind of attitude, especially to the newer users?
1 Like
Not necessarily. For example, people would like to know why they should be expected to purchase a Lutron Caseta pro bridge to get their Caseta devices working with hubitat when they “just worked” with wink. People who are already, understandably, kinda grumpy about being asked to pay more money for their home automation habit. Because let’s be honest, all of us are addicted to this stuff at least a little 
.
Trying to explain why in that specific case gets old fast. The info is out there, and there’s even a history about how hubitat did what they could to try to overcome a limitation that they had zero control over and literally never will.
There may always be a tension between some new and old ideas, but hopefully we can all at least agree on the same set of facts at the outset 
.
5 Likes
That said, their answers could change over time. They may well have said (behind closed doors) "nah we don't want to do that, Wink has that part of the market cornered, not worth trying to compete with them" and now when Wink is out of the picture... who knows what they think!
1 Like
Were it so simple.
There are some basic rules of the road in using Hubitat, and in using Rule Machine. These are not hard to learn. Just as with driving, if you drive on the wrong side of the road bad things will happen. There are sign posts where there should be to prevent that. Just above the Remove a device button is the list of the apps where that device is in use. Don't remove a device until you've addressed that list. It even warns you. If you decide to blow by the warning and delete it anyway, why would you be so surprised that you blew something up? That's an example of driving on the wrong side of the road.
4 Likes
That would be a fair criticism if the user weren't presented with specific warnings before deleting a device.
3 Likes
That, my friend, is a ridiculous assertion. I'm not blaming the user. The system is the system. We are constantly working on improving it. But, no matter what improvements we make, there will always be things that a user has to learn to make use of it. There is no miracle UI that can replace learning how something works. Home automation is non-trivial. Anything that is non-trivial has to be learned.
3 Likes
Only if you delete the device before fixing the rule. If you're going to change the device that a rule works on, why not just fix the rule first?
2 Likes
I have never had to do that when I used Rule Machine.
Really? It was so easy with Wink. All I had to do was pull my phone out, open the app, and voila control the device. Now that's real automation.
4 Likes
So maybe (?) in summary -
- It works the way it works currently. Maybe not perfect (what software is?) but very workable/usable.
- Hubitat has tried to put warnings/bread crumbs in place to make it more obvious to the user that they are getting ready to break something when deleting a device.
- It would be great if it were even easier (search/replace or other). Duly noted, and a perfectly valid opinion/want.
- Hubitat would make it even easier if they can figure out a way, without reprogramming the entire interface of the system as that isn't practical from a resource/effort standpoint. That may/may not happen, but it isn't happening because they don't want to improve the system. Until if/when it happens, see #1 & #2.
As much as RM has improved over the months/years, it would be hard to refute that Bruce cares about how it works, and continuously works to improve it.
4 Likes
Doh, I should have had a V8!
You know that part of RM where all of the Conditions are there so you can edit them and it automagically changes where they are used? You know how easy (not) it has been for people to understand that. So, I guess the next step is to put in an abstraction of devices, with every device used in one place. Nothing could possibly go wrong. If the device is used in more than one place in a complex rule, surely changing it in one place would mean I want to change it everywhere, right? Oops, no I only wanted to change it in that first nested IF-THEN, not all of them. So, wait, doesn't that imply that we need to reference each spot a device is used, so I can pick and choose which spot in the complex rule I want to change the device for? But wait, doesn't that already exist when you edit the actions of the rule?
5 Likes
What I have always is one of these ways:
- Include or add the new device. In a new tab, open the old device. Follow the link and replace old for new.
- Make a virtual device. If I am using it temporarily, I almost always use A1 or some variation thereof to make it pop to the top of the list and easy to see. Again, substitute old for virtual device. This takes a step 3 to go back to a real device, but is still easier than rewriting complex rules.
It isn't optimal, but it isn't often you have to do this.
3 Likes
What? You want people to use those features you painstakingly put into the product? Absurd. (<--- sarcasm)
I guess I oversimplified when I was trying to defuse and summarize.
1 Like
Well, no. Now that I've done all of that, I'd prefer people to Keep It Simple Stupid! Ha! Down with complex rules!
There is no answer to these puzzles. Well, maybe there is an answer: offer alternative ways to do things.
