I think I see what you mean now. But isn’t there supposed to be just one trigger in any given flow, and all the other components just being AND (conditions) and THEN (actions)? I don’t think the ANY will wait for the execution result of another called child flow, does it?
For example: this does not complete if “Lamp JH” is turned on while waiting. It just evaluates the current state at the time the flow is started.
It depends on your flow.
I general you have ont trigger whichbstarts the flow. Then you can have several conditions you check and perhaps actions, wherebyou are checking the return.
So you have one start, but the flow prozessing can ve asynchronous. That means every condition is checked idependent and some lines can take longer (if you have actions waiting for a response).
So for example tve ALL element is just waiting for input. Only if all inputs are true it’s executed.
Same for the ANY. If the first input comes, it’s executed.
All other states are not relevant for that.
So you have a AND and a OR check at all.
And the NOT(true) would be easier realized as a OR/ANY(error/false)
I agree with JeeHaa (and with Anders_Gregow’s comment on point 3+4)
About the “messy” part in these points 3+4, I fully agree. I had to get used to the extreme curved lines used on the canvas.
IDEA: Maybe it’s possible, to make the lines only curve forwards unless the next card is placed backwards? (talking only in X-axis direction) This would make the canvas be more neat…
And of course the deleting of connections behind cards (as mentioned also by JeeHaa) needs to be simplified for sure.
Maybe there is a possibility to change the color of the lines when you hover over them to see where it goes. With very complex flows it is easyer to see.
And maybe when you hover over them that the line gets in front of the card so that the line easyer can be deleted.
Another improvement to simplify things a bit: merge the separate cards shown below “This flow is started with a text-tag” + Logic card using “Start value” into one new card: “This flow is started with [Type] [Operator] [Value]” (e.g. … with Text is exactly MyValue).
Does anyone know why you can’t go from an and card back to a when card?
Now I have to create multiple advance flows to be able to achieve everything. If you could go back from the and card to the when card, I think it saves a lot of flows in the end. And you can eventually make everything on 1 canvas. Now if an and card in your flow is wrong. Because of the time, I think you have to quickly switch to another flow. see example how it might be easier?
When cards are not conditions, they are triggers and only meant for starting a flow.
Some have arguments that get validated, but get validated to the value that triggers that card, flows can’t put a value there.
In your example, it will even never be the same 2 times, at the same time, so even if it did work, it will never continue.
You could put the line after the when card though, which does practically the same you want it to go.
You can also put several When cards in 1 advanced flow, so no need to create several flows for that.
You could do it by calling a start-flow card, and have the current flow also started by this flow-trigger. But everytime you start a flow it will be a new instance running in parallell and not knowing of any of the tag from the starting flow as it is another instance of the same flow.
The problem by calling the same flow is that you might end up in an infinit loop, and the flow will be disabled.
I’ve been fiddling with the shutters at home for a while now.
Now I’ve gotten it right so far by starting different flows.
Only now that I’ve made the switch to advance flows I want to add some extra things and see if it can be easier and clearer.
And that’s where I get stuck. I will add the link of my post.
to create more clarity.
Do you have examples of how I can best build/make my idea?
(sorry my english is not so good. but google translate helps me well.)