Did something change in 5.1 for rules DSL parsing? Previously if you had a “return;” in the rule and it prevented further execution, it would print out a warning about unreachable expression and then it would print out a line that said “using it anyway”, which was fine – I meant to temporarily bloc…

There was a change. All validation diagnostics were previously considered as warnings. Now validation diagnostics returned with an ERROR flag are now considered as errors . Made sense to us when it was changed. Should we made an exception for rules? To be discussed. @jimtng for information …

I like the behavior before.. I used this too. For debugging the rule it’s nice with the return. I vote for the old behavior :blush: greets

I just noticed that behavior too. Even worse it unloads all rules from that DSL rule file. I vote for returnung to the old behavior. Thanks

[image] Lolodomo: There was a change. All validation diagnostics were previously considered as warnings. Now validation diagnostics returned with an ERROR flag are now considered as errors . Made sense to us when it was changed. Should we made an exception for rules? To be discussed. @jimtng …

This can have severe impact on people with rules they never cared to get “warning-less”, possibly because they didn’t understand the validation warning or couldn’t find out how to fix it. There’s some hard to catch ones, particularly those who don’t show a line number, and you have a large rule. I…

As of https://community.openhab.org/t/text-rules-are-randomly-not-loaded-in-openhab-5-1/ a rule with [ lamp | in OpenHAB 5.1 sometimes fails, and sometimes not, while [GenericItem lamp| always works. In 5.0 [ lamp | always worked. My understanding is that sometimes parsing a rule produces a warnin…

[image] dpa-openhab: There is no context to infer the closure's argument types from. Consider typing the arguments or put the closures into a typed context. I figured this out. After boot, a rule containing g.members.forEach[ u | logError(“A”, u.name + “|” + u.state + " | " + u.class.toStr…

If (Group) item g is not defined, and I rewrite the snippet to: g.members.forEach[ logError(“A”, it.name) ] on rule parsing there are no errors, at rule execution the error is Script execution of rule with UID ‘starttest-1’ failed: The name ‘g’ cannot be resolved to an item or type; line 6, co…

Can someone please post two versions of a .rules file that: a. Works / gets loaded successfully b. Doesn’t work / not loaded but you wish would have loaded. Ideally this is the same rule as A with just one little change that you feel shouldn’t cause it not to load. Make sure it’s the full file th…

I believe this case stands for all DSL Rule warnings converted to errors: If (Group) item g does not exist: With 5.1 fails during parsing, but was parsed and loaded with 5.0. In 5.0 it caused run-time error, in case g was still absent during execution: rule "A" when Item r changed then g.me…

Rules DSL in 5.1 is now unloading rules if it has unreachable expressions?

Setup, Configuration and Use Scripts & Rules

jimtng (jimtng) February 13, 2026, 4:43pm 15