I wanted to share an interesting observation and solution I found while setting up a Rule Machine (RM) rule to monitor doors in my home. The goal was to receive a notification if any of my three doors remained open for more than 10 minutes—a simple yet effective way to ensure security.
Initially, I configured the rule to trigger notifications for each door individually. However, I noticed an intriguing behavior: if multiple doors were opened and closed in succession, the notification would sometimes reference the first door that was opened, even if it was no longer the one left open. For example, if I opened the back door, then the kitchen door, and closed the back door, the notification would still indicate the back door was open, even though it was the kitchen door that remained open.
This led me to realize that RM captures the device state at the moment the rule first becomes true, rather than at the end of the delay. While this makes sense from a technical standpoint, it can be a bit confusing for users who want precise information about which door is actually open.
To address this, I decided to create separate rules for each door. This approach ensures that each door’s status is independently monitored, eliminating any confusion about which door triggered the notification. It’s a bit more work upfront, but it provides clarity and peace of mind.
I’m curious if others have encountered similar behavior or if there’s a more streamlined solution to track the most recent door that caused the rule to trigger. Maybe RM could be enhanced to keep track of the last device that made the rule true, but I can see how that might not always be the desired outcome.
In any case, this experience taught me the importance of thoroughly testing rules and being mindful of how device states are captured over time. It’s a valuable lesson for anyone setting up similar automation in their home!