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.
There are "answers" - there is just no one "right answer" for everyone, as good/bad and hard/easy is subject and relative anyway.
Well, I for one like RM4. Yes I would like a text editor "more", but that doesn't mean that RM4 isn't incredibly impressive, and functional.
Is it perfect? No, nothing is. But it is a million times better than I could do, so I'm not throwing stones. 
I agree. It ends up being sort of "art", to strike some balance between design, usability, and functionality. At one end of the spectrum is writing Groovy code to do exactly and precisely what you want in the most efficient way. At the other end is maybe Simple Automation Rules -- although even that has a learning curve. Ah, yes, whipping out the phone for fat finger automation is always an option ("Honey, just get your phone out when you want to use the bathroom, it will work great.").
And, it is all very subjective, just like art. Some people like Picasso, and some people like Rembrandt, and some people hate cubism, and some people detest classical art. Then some artists cut their ear off because its all so maddening.
I'm an engineer, I don't know nothin' about no art. 
2 Likes
You would, if you were an Apple engineer - its all about the art there 
Ever since I've been more on the leadership/management side this is how I often feel:
4 Likes
I use the virtual switch "placeholder" method when I remember. That works fantastic, but I sometimes forget and then, DOH! Usually can fix it. Sometimes it gets messed up and I just need to recreate it. NBD. However if there was a way to insert a virtual placeholder device for me instead of just telling me I broke it, that would be sweet. Then if I could just replace the proxy virtual device.
Disclaimer:
I'm a dreamer, not an engineer.
2 Likes
I have my bullpen I can go to at a moments notice.
5 Likes
So these are all virtual devices used expressly for this purpose? If so, that is a great tip. Tips like this need to go into a FAQ somewhere.
2 Likes
There's a list I made .. documenting the weird.. that I update from time to time.
3 Likes
Yes. I've been known to leave them in rules when worried a device might flake out on me. Last year, when August pushed bad firmware, it really saved me as I was constantly excluding the real locks just to get limited functionality.
1 Like
I have the same thing, but all in a virtual container.
2 Likes
I think you can just change it in conditions, and you will be good to go.
1 Like
