I noticed today that I was missing some triggers, well at least I thought they were missing but I just figured I deleted them without thinking things through sometime last week.


Well I just confirmed that they did indeed dissapear as I made another one dissapear before my eyes.


I had a trigger called Startup: Get Status which was a startup trigger that called an action group called Get Status.

In the action group Get Status, I had it manually polling each device. It worked great but I like dtich's Applescript from the other thread as I won't have to remember to add new devices in the future.

So I went and deleted the action group Get Status since I would just configure the trigger to all the Applescript, but when I went back into the triggers menu it was gone! I figured it would just be sitting there with no action defined to it but it was completely gone. Not a big deal to add back in but...

I think the same thing happened last week when I was tweaking some of my X10 devices that are assigned to LEDs. I had consolidated them so instead of each individual LED having it's own X10 address I grouped them by type so all the Dining rooms were the same address, all the Living rooms were the same, etc... But in that instance I had two of each, deleted one and kept one, yet the triggers that manipulated those "devices" dissapeared. (hopefully that makes sense)

This is actually as designed. You should have received a sheet warning when you deleted the Action Group that other database elements were using it and would also be deleted.

Now I agree this is a bit harsh... Indigo 1.x didn't like to have invalid objects (a Trigger Action that points to an Action Group that has been deleted, for example). 2.0 can handle these invalid cases better, so I could relax the "delete dependent items" rule a bit.

I think ideally Indigo would show a sheet with all of the dependent items and then give you the choice to individually let them become invalid or to delete them. That won't be happening in 2.0 though.

Regards,
Matt

Well I definitely didn't get a warning, so imagine my surprise.

snowjay wrote:Well I definitely didn't get a warning, so imagine my surprise.

Well, now that would most definitely not be how it was designed.

If you see the problem again, or can come up with steps to reproduce it, then let me know. I just tried it and the warning sheet was shown first.

Regards,
Matt