• 10 dec 2017: forum version update. In case of issues use this topic.
  • 30 nov 2017: pilight moved servers. In case of issues use this topic.
Hello There, Guest! Login Register


Thread Rating:
  • 1 Vote(s) - 3 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Incompatibility in handling of rules:
#18
For the above mentioned configuration, using the development branch, i noticed the following.
Code:
[{"type":8,"devices":["zeit"],"values":"timestamp":1457940730,"dst":0,"second":42,"minute":3,"hour":9,"weekday":2,"day":14,"month":3,"year":2016}},{"type":3,"devices":["sunshine"],"values":{"timestamp":1457931688,"sun":"rise","sunset":18.23,"sunrise":6.33}},
...
{"type":1,"devices":["LampenZeitschaltUhr"],"values":{"timestamp":1457931688,"state":"off"}},
...
{"type":1,"devices":["EG_Buero"],"values":{"timestamp":1457931688,"state":"off"}},
{"type":1,"devices":["EG_Flur"],"values":{"timestamp":1457931689,"state":"off"}},
{"type":1,"devices":["OG_Klavier"],"values":{"timestamp":1457931690,"state":"off"}},
{"type":1,"devices":["OG_Tisch"],"values":{"timestamp":1457931689,"state":"off"}}]

Based on the sequence of rules defined in config.json, i would have expected that the sequence of protocol events for turning the devices off is EG_Buereo, EG_Flur, OG_Klavier, OG_Tisch,
but
looking at the timestamps, it is not.
Thus I have two questions:
1. Can I enforce the sequence of rules to be evaluated ?
2. Can I expect that rules are not passing each other in execution (timewise)?

Other questions that may be important as well:
Is there a possibility, that rules may fail in the current implementation, due to:
3. Time has elapsed (e.q. the comparison of the second has passed by, and due to the fact that the second is part of the logic statement in a rule that condition may no longer be true)
that is part of a rule)?

Remark:
With the current implementation of 10 repeats as a standard, the quigg_protocol has an execution time of pretty close to 1 second, so I would have expected that the timestamps are in order to the evaluation of the rules, the result is put in a queue, and the queue is executed in the order of time(d) events generated. I know that the GPIO subsystem will not mix RF transmissions up, but executes them in sequence, but could it be that the GPIO subsystem handles the event at a different time then stated in the value configuration.
in a different twill it also
This leads to my next two questions:
4. At which time is the timestamp generated ?
5. In the branch rewrite, how is it expected that this behaviour change with the common pool ?

The answer to question 4 is trivial for a single computer environment, but it is getting crucial for an Ad-Hoc Network, as it will be important to know at which point in time an action is triggered / executed and to be able to control such moment in time.
 
Reply
  


Messages In This Thread
RE: Incompatibility in handling of rules: - by wo_rasp - 03-14-2016, 08:57 AM

Forum Jump:


Browsing: 1 Guest(s)