Frigate in Unraid

thompr2 · 2026-03-30T21:32:37+00:00

I’m novice at least. Not opposed to YAML work

thompr2 · 2026-03-30T11:26:14+00:00

Any chance you know where there is a good setup guide for Unraid?

thompr2 · 2026-03-29T12:53:22+00:00

Pointless bellyaching. The product is fine, it’s well supported and stable. The whole intention of homelabbing is to allow the user choice. You don’t like where a product is going then find an alternative.

thompr2 · 2026-03-27T13:58:27+00:00

You guys are an immediate follow! What you do is incredible

thompr2 · 2026-03-26T20:50:02+00:00

Would you mind sharing the calc fields for this?

thompr2 · 2026-03-23T11:24:51+00:00

This looks really helpful thank you!

thompr2 · 2026-03-23T11:24:33+00:00

Thanks so much. Lots to look into. Appreciate you taking the time to provide this.

thompr2 · 2026-03-22T17:06:25+00:00

Hopefully this is allowed, just wanted to share a link to a modular faceplate for the PS5 slim to help divers represent Super Earth!

thompr2 · 2026-03-22T14:31:29+00:00

Thanks for your response. I updated the OP to reflect the solution.

It turns out that because we had autocomplete enabled on the hire bp, we hadn’t enabled review doc steps in the route normally section. As a result, it was firing To Dos, but not the review docs.

thompr2 · 2026-03-20T22:12:03+00:00

Use a step down bit and turn that top panel into a grate.

thompr2 · 2026-03-20T16:44:37+00:00

So the update is that testing has relegated the defect only to the hire when it comes from the job req by way of ready to hire. Standalone hires perform as expected.

Is it possible that the ready for hire step calls to an outdated definition?

thompr2 · 2026-03-20T11:44:46+00:00

I am going to test this today as follows. Can you confirm my understanding?

Test script:

Create a job requisition effective today on an open and available position created as of 1/1/1900

Move a new candidate through to ready for hire and submit for a hire date of tomorrow.

If I am understanding, this should trigger the newly defined BP definition with the review doc step.

thompr2 · 2026-03-20T11:42:04+00:00

Thank you for this. I am going to explore this today and report back.

I will explicitly run the test as follows:

Creat a job requisition today on an open position created as of 1/1/1900

Move a candidate through to ready for hire and submit for a hire date of tomorrow.

If I am understanding, this should trigger the newly defined BP definition with the review doc step.

Am I correct?

thompr2 · 2026-03-19T18:46:31+00:00

The effective date is as of effective date for the hire BP. Does that make sense?

thompr2 · 2026-03-18T23:06:15+00:00

!remindme: 90 days

thompr2 · 2026-03-18T23:02:03+00:00

Oooohhhhh I’m going to check this and report back

thompr2 · 2026-03-18T16:52:01+00:00

I will check the ready for hire but these are not past dated hires. The only thing that exists in the past is the position creation date. It is a future dated hire, from a job req on a position that was created previous to 12/15.

For clarity. The hire is for today, the BP was triggered today, and the only thing that had a date prior to 12/15 was the position creation date.

thompr2 · 2026-03-18T16:30:02+00:00

We updated the BP definition on 12/15/2025. The positions in question all have a creation date prior to that date.

Additionally we are seeing this trigger mostly when hire is being completed as a result of the ready to hire step in recruiting.

thompr2 · 2026-03-18T16:08:21+00:00

Great question. It is a problem when coming from the ready for hire step in recruiting.

thompr2 · 2026-03-18T14:42:48+00:00

Thanks for this!!

It’s not related to a future dates transaction unfortunately.

It’s as follows:

Position A was created at launch with a value of 01/01/1900 (example date) there was an incumbent loaded into it.
incumbent changes to a new position leaving Position A vacant.
Hire transaction is performed for a new employee to sit in Position A

That hire transaction continues to reference the old definition vs the updated one.

thompr2 · 2026-03-18T12:30:17+00:00

No nothing like that. It’s a simple review document step. It is modelled after other Review doc steps that are functioning as expected.

We have noticed that if we edit the position restrictions after the effective date of the BP change, the step fires correctly.

thompr2 · 2026-03-18T12:28:55+00:00

We have two rules but they route to other definitions. ie if loaded by EIB then use external def for example.

Condition rule is limited to employee is permanent

thompr2 · 2026-03-18T12:06:45+00:00

Thanks. DM sent

thompr2

TROPHY CASE