Auxiliary memory in IFTTT

[Yosemite]

It would be very useful if you could add more feature like auxiliary memory (internal registers), or similar functionality, to IFTTT's inputs and outputs this will be significantly enhanced its capabilities. Just as auxiliary memory is crucial in PLCs for temporarily storing data and managing conditional logic during program execution, it could bring similar benefits to IFTTT. This would allow for more complex and nuanced automations based on stored states and data.

By the way, from my understanding the IFTTT function you have provided can work without internet connection, right?

[admin]

we will add more option for IFTTT in future.
Yes, you are right, our IFTTT function work without internet.

[Yosemite]

we will add more option for IFTTT in future.
Yes, you are right, our IFTTT function work without internet.

Thank you for considering adding the suggestion feature in the future.

[twostar]

In a previous post I've requested adding IFTTT rule chaining, so instead of rules being something like "IF input THEN output" you can say "IF input THEN rule2" and rule2 applies further conditions.  Is the internal state you've requested something like this, where you could use a chained rule to store state?

In my case I've temporarily used relays to implement rule chaining, so an IFTTT rule switches an output which switches a relay which is fed to the input for the next rule, but doing it in software would be nicer.

[admin]

thanks for suggestion. next new version of KCS v3, will add customize protocol for "IF condition".

[Yosemite]

In a previous post I've requested adding IFTTT rule chaining, so instead of rules being something like "IF input THEN output" you can say "IF input THEN rule2" and rule2 applies further conditions.  Is the internal state you've requested something like this, where you could use a chained rule to store state?

In my case I've temporarily used relays to implement rule chaining, so an IFTTT rule switches an output which switches a relay which is fed to the input for the next rule, but doing it in software would be nicer.

Sure, the internal memory can definitely serve your required functions instead of using the physical relay feedbacks to the input, as you have done (due to no other choices), by defining that IF M1 (internal memory) is true, THEN output; or IF M1 and/or Mxx are true, THEN output."

[twostar]

Could this be added to KCS v2 as well?  It would be a big hassle to have to buy new hardware and re-wire everything onto a new board.

[admin]

KCS v2 can't add new functions now, it already used full resource.

[Yosemite]

Will a reduction in the number of IFTTT rule help this case? In my opinion, boards with a small number of I/O do not require the 100+ rules provided. However, I hope that you will add this feature to KCS V3.

[twostar]

I was thinking about this last night and there may be a way to do it with minimal code overhead: Allow DO to be specified in an IF test.  At the moment you can say IF ( DI ) or IF ( AI ), what about adding the ability to say IF ( DO )?  Then rule1 can set or reset DO, providing internal state, and rule2 can have DO in the IF test.  For example here's how to do ( A OR B ) AND C, as ( DI 1 OR DI 2 ) AND DI 3:

rule1: IF ( DI 1 OR DI 2 ) THEN ( SET DO 1 )
rule2: IF ( DO 1 AND DI 3 ) THEN ( ... )

You can also implement stuff like RS flip-flops and other things with internal state using IFTTT rules, there's just no way to connect one rule to the next one at the moment.