Noodlesoft Forums

Hello,

I can't say exactly when the problem started, but Hazel is only partially working.

System: Big Sur 11.4
Hazel version: 5.07

I noticed that pdfs were no longer moved and that files were not renamed as usual. Both worked without problems in the past.

Here is an example of the error:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1sJZjdCgmQwOLglEhDFZWim7OI1ij2H7j/view?usp=sharing
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1pB8xSvGkFkAC20U7PpFhAPT1zNKg3784/view?usp=sharing

That is the result of the rule:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1cGHaz0d-aT0FV1E3bROBPNJEzp-Oej8C/view?usp=sharing
Date is correct but the naming is missing and the file is not moved!

The log:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1dbuAXcmIr7gqYmUZtGaRbOnIJAKdOm3W/view?usp=sharing

I am at a loss, especially because it has worked without problems in the past.

I have already tried to assign new folders and create new rules. Some rules work temporarily in parts.
I have already reinstalled Hazel and imported rules again. Unfortunately without success.

Since I run a paperless office, the whole thing is highly unpleasant, as I am dependent on a reliable solution.

The logs show the file is matching a different rule. If you use the Rule Status, you can catch these types of issues. You will need to either change the conditions on the rules or re-order them.

Mr_Noodle wrote:The logs show the file is matching a different rule. If you use the Rule Status, you can catch these types of issues. You will need to either change the conditions on the rules or re-order them.

I don't understand that. The expressions are unique and don't fit any other rule.
When I rebuild the rule it shows the same picture, the date is inserted correctly, the text is not and the file is not moved.

I just changed the 3 conditions without success.

Maybe I just don't understand the error.....

The logs indicate it is matching the Datum einfügen rule. You should take a look at that rule again.

Mr_Noodle wrote:The logs indicate it is matching the Datum einfügen rule. You should take a look at that rule again.

Thank you, now I understood and was able to identify the problem. It was indeed a single rule that only set the date and was apparently in competition with other, more complex rules with date function.

Thanks for the help!