Strange Group behaviour

Raspi 4 running openHAB 2.5.10-1 (Release Build)


I am using Groups wherever I can - thanks to the great Design pattern turtorials of @rlkoshak:

However, I just noticed a strange behaviour in my event.log:

2020-11-20 16:04:56.349 [vent.ItemStateChangedEvent] - NCO_WLAN changed from OFF to ON
2020-11-20 16:04:56.350 [GroupItemStateChangedEvent] - G_Mobiles changed from 0 to 1 through MLA_WLAN
2020-11-20 16:04:56.352 [ome.event.ItemCommandEvent] - Item 'Open_VPN' received command OFF
2020-11-20 16:04:56.355 [ome.event.ItemCommandEvent] - Item 'Presence' received command ON
2020-11-20 16:04:56.364 [vent.ItemStateChangedEvent] - Act_Mobiles changed from Keine to NCO

The G_Mobiles Group is defined like below with 4 items (Switches based on Wifi connection):
Group:Number:SUM G_Mobiles "Mobiltelefone [%d]"

The behaviour of all the rules is ok (in this case NCO_WLAN triggered VPN to go OFF.
Furthermore a String mentioning all active Phones is also correct (Act_Mobiles)
Only the log entry is weird (the.

Does anyone have an idea how this could be happening as the eventlog is something I cannot control (like loginfo … in openhab.log)?

What do you expect to see?

What are the states of all the members of, including G_Mobiles, prior to these log statements?

G_Mobiles is 0 (no phone of 5 phones online - so all xxx_WLAN are OFF).
NCO_WLAN changes to ON, so G_Mobiles should change from 0 to 1 through NCO_WLAN, not MLA_WLAN (my mother in law and definitely not around :wink:
(The Phone switches are set by MAC adresses using the Fritzbox TR064 binding)

OK, in that case I would watch it and if the problem persists file an issue. Though you probably will need to test it on OH 3 first since there have been lots of changes.

Nothing in OH core has changed since 2.5.0 came out nearly a year ago so this has been sitting in the code all this time. It’s a rare problem and not really a problem since the only thing we know for sure that is wrong is the event.log statement.

I agree - I just wanted to make sure that I don’t miss something.
The system’s behaviour is consistent - so I am happy :slight_smile:
Thanks for your quick clarification, Rich.