Macro Update Checker (Work-In-Progress)

[noisneil]

Ok I'm just spitballin' here, and this may be something nobody's that interested in, but hear me out...

You're developing a macro and you upload it to the forum. You know it's still not quite there yet, so you title it My Cool Macro v1.0 and add this little macro group at its start:

Another forum member downloads your macro. Each time they run it, it checks to see if it's been updated in the original forum post it was downloaded from.

If it has, the user is prompted to download the latest version:

There are a few considerations:

• It requires you to publish the forum post in order to retrieve its post URL and add it to the macro as a variable before you actually upload the macro to that post. A bit convoluted!
• I opted to run the update check as an async submacro, to avoid delays to the execution of the macro in question. The down-side is that the user will have to have downloaded it. An alternative would be to include the checker as a disabled in-line action group that the user would manually right-click and Try, to check for updates explicitly.
• We would obviously want more options in the user prompt. Don't ask me again, for example.

Anyway, if you have any thoughts on this idea, let me know. It might not be worth investigating further, but I've often wondered if there might be a more elegant solution for keeping macros up-to-date.

Macro Update Checker.kmmacros (40 KB)

Macro screenshot

EXAMPLE: My Cool Macro v1.0.kmmacros (48 KB)

Macro screenshot

[kevinb]

That’s a very good idea. However, I wonder (without having thought through any implementation details) whether the problems that you mention should just be avoided by using a repository for such macros outside the forum. That is to say, the forum is almost certainly not ideal as a software archive.

[noisneil]

The thought had crossed my mind, but a user might delete macros hosted on GitHub/Dropbox, etc, which isn't great for future referencers.

I suppose, in an ideal world, we'd have a shared KM repository, with versioning. Perhaps that's possible with GitHub, but Peter would have to design an interface.

Then there's still the issue of how to check for those updates. This method works, but it's a bit fiddly.

@griffman has done some fantastic work on a forum bookmarking tool. I wonder if he has any thoughts about this...?

[Airy]

@noisneil

It requires you to publish the forum post in order to retrieve its post URL and add it to the macro as a variable before you actually upload the macro to that post. A bit convoluted!

Not entirely accurate. You should be able to use a KM action to call a macOS shortcut with the following action, and then filter the result that's returned to the KM action to get the answer.

You may need to use the ChatGPT model (because the default model may not work.) However I will point out that the result returned in this specific case doesn't include the correct answer. I'm not sure if that's a temporary problem or not. In theory, this should work. Maybe if you reword the question a little better, you could get the correct answer.

I recommend that people on this forum try tinkering with the wording above to get the correct answer. My results differed each time I tinkered with the wording. With the right English wording, you may be able to solve this problem.

[mrpasini]

@noisneil

Each time they run it, it checks to see if it's been updated in the original forum post it was downloaded from.

What's the naming convention of the file that the macro expects?

[griffman]

@noisneil

@griffman has done some fantastic work on a forum bookmarking tool. I wonder if he has any thoughts about this...?

I actually have an update checker in a few of my more regularly-updated macros. It stores the macros on my personal server, and a hash value on Github—that way, if someone gets to my personal server and hacks a macro, the update will fail unless they also manage to hack my Github and update the hash values. And honestly, I don't see that being anywhere near worth the effort required.

I posted a working sample version a long time ago; I'm still using that basic updater today. While it's not quite as fiddly as yours, it requires a pretty steep technical learning curve, and you have to update a number of items each time you update a macro.

In short, it's far from perfect, but it works reasonably well for my needs.

-rob.

[noisneil]

@Airy

Not entirely accurate.

My initial post here wasn't entirely informative. I didn't make one thing clear: The address added to the Macro Forum Post URL action needs to link to the actual comment that contains the macro, not just the thread that contains that comment.

@mrpasini

What's the naming convention of the file that the macro expects?

It accepts .kmmacros and .zip. It's not fool-proof though - if the linked post contains multiple macros with differing version numbers, it will get confused. I think this is potentially acceptable though, as the user will be aware of this limitation when they decide whether to include the update checker in the posted macro. We could potentially make it more robust by checking for the macro name too. I was aware of this, but decided that, for ease and clarity, checking for the version number only would be neater and sufficient in most cases.

@griffman

I posted a working sample version a long time ago

That looks like great work, and probably a lot smarter than my efforts here. I suppose there's still a conversation to be had about making something that the average forum member could use without needing external repositories, but I'm not sure there'd be much uptake, even then.

Hmm...

[Airy]

@noisneil

I didn't make one thing clear: The address added to the Macro Forum Post URL action needs to link to the actual comment that contains the macro, not just the thread that contains that comment.

Oh, I see. Well, I don't see why an AI model can't take you to the actual comment. But as I showed, it's not getting the right link at all today. With a little massaging I might be able to get it to work, and even bring you to the actual comment in the thread.

[noisneil]

You might get it to work with some trial and error, but the prompt would need to be carefully crafted for each macro and there are too many variables for it to be reliable or universally applicable for each macro in each comment of each thread.

[Airy]

@noisneil

there are too many variables for it to be reliable or universally applicable for each macro in each comment of each thread.

Yes I agree it won't be 100% reliable, as my current results have already proven. But I was also thinking that when you originally write the macro, you could put a unique string into each version the macro, which AI or a general web search might be able to find. Anyway, I admit my proposed solution isn't working today, so that's not a good sign.

[mrpasini]

@noisneil

Anyway, if you have any thoughts on this idea, let me know.

Because Keyboard Maestro macros do not themselves require access to the Internet, it might be wise to handle cases where the user is not online (silently die perhaps).

[noisneil]

@mrpasini

handle cases where the user is not online

Good idea. I've updated the checker macro above.

[_jims]

Note from @_jims: I was intending to share a new post in this thread and I mistakenly botched this post. Since the new post will supersede the information that was originally in this post, it was easier for me to add this note rather than attempting to restore the original content.

(In Discourse, if there's a way to restore an older version of a post, I haven't found it. )

I'll submit the new post soon. In the meantime, here's the updated help content for Macro Update Checker.

---

Updated Help ( expand / collapse )

---

[noisneil]

Hiya Jim!

Seems like we've been thinking along the same lines, but you took it a bit further than I did. Good stuff!

So how did you get around the thread/comment creation paradox? Unless you're posting a macro in an existing discussion, no thread number exists at the time of upload.

Does Report Level refer to the comment number?

[_jims]

@noisneil

So how did you get around the thread/comment creation paradox? Unless you're posting a macro in an existing discussion, no thread number exists at the time of upload.

I just updated my post with v0.2 of each component. In the subroutine (s.𝗸𝗺⇾MacroUpdateChecker), I updated the help to address this question.

@noisneil

Does Report Level refer to the comment number?

That I already had in the help. Please let me know if it makes sense. No doubt all of this has a few rough edges.

[noisneil]

Thanks for that! So yeah, basically you do it exactly the same way, but with way more attention to detail. Love the formatting of those help prompts by the way!

[_jims]

@noisneil

So yeah, basically you do it exactly the same way

Yes, most forum users figure this out eventually, but maybe the help information will assist some.

@noisneil

Love the formatting of those help prompts

Thanks! For dark mode, I stole the color palette from you .

I did add a light mode because I use both modes at times. The help will automatically adjust to match the Keyboard Maestro editor mode.

[_jims]

Hi, @noisneil. I've added a few features that provide some likely necessary flexibility for users. Rather than updating my original post, I'll describe everything here.

Please note: If you've downloaded earlier versions (v0.1 or v0.2) of the subroutine (s.𝗸𝗺⇾MacroUpdateChecker) or submacro (sm.𝗸𝗺⇾MacroUpdateCheckerEngine), delete those copies before downloading and installing the versions (v0.3) in this post.

---

As I mentioned before, I normally update the title of a Keyboard Maestro forum thread (in the Macro Library category) with the latest macro version information. For example:

MACRO: Augment or Transform Text, v8.0

---

Macros Equipped to Check for Updates (on the KM Forum)

Here's an example macro that has a different (presumably newer) version available on the Keyboard Maestro forum, specifically in the Macro Library category...

Download: Augment or Transform Text.kmmacros (8.5 KB)

Macro-Image

---

Macro-Notes

• Macros are always disabled when imported into the Keyboard Maestro Editor.
  • The user must ensure the macro is enabled.
  • The user must also ensure the macro's parent macro-group is enabled.

---

System Information

• macOS 26.1 (25B78)
• Keyboard Maestro v11.0.4

---

And here's the corresponding feedback...

---

Here's an example macro that a user downloaded from the forum and subsequently renamed the local copy...

Download: Insert Token (copy).kmmacros (12 KB)

Macro-Image

---

Macro-Notes

• Macros are always disabled when imported into the Keyboard Maestro Editor.
  • The user must ensure the macro is enabled.
  • The user must also ensure the macro's parent macro-group is enabled.

---

System Information

• macOS 26.1 (25B78)
• Keyboard Maestro v11.0.4

---

And here's the corresponding feedback when a new version is available on the forum...

Note: Although the name mismatch is mentioned in the above dialog, the logic does not provide feedback unless there is also a version mismatch.

---

Enabling Check for Updates

The equipped macros discussed above call this subroutine...

Download: s.𝗸𝗺⇾MacroUpdateChecker.kmmacros (174 KB)

Macro-Image

---

Macro-Notes

• Macros are always disabled when imported into the Keyboard Maestro Editor.
  • The user must ensure the macro is enabled.
  • The user must also ensure the macro's parent macro-group is enabled.

---

System Information

• macOS 26.1 (25B78)
• Keyboard Maestro v11.0.4

---

which in turn calls this submacro asynchronously...

Download: sm.𝗸𝗺⇾MacroUpdateCheckerEngine.kmmacros (91 KB)

Macro-Image

---

Macro-Notes

• Macros are always disabled when imported into the Keyboard Maestro Editor.
  • The user must ensure the macro is enabled.
  • The user must also ensure the macro's parent macro-group is enabled.

---

System Information

• macOS 26.1 (25B78)
• Keyboard Maestro v11.0.4

---

The embedded help has more information regarding the comparison method and related subroutine parameters. The help can be displayed using the subroutine call.

---

Updated Help ( expand / collapse )

---

In the above screenshots you likely noticed that I added a feature to Skip: 1) the currently posted version of the corresponding macro, or 2) ALL other versions of the corresponding macro.

There will no doubt be times when a user might want to undo one or more of these choices, thus the subroutine provides that feature too. Specifically, there are two options (1 and +) and one big hammer (initialize), all triggered using the Adjust Update Alerts subroutine parameter...

Adjust Update Alerts

• 1 : adjust settings for the triggered macro
• + : adjust settings for any macro† (from a selection list)
• initialize : delete all saved Skip settings for all macros†

^{†In this context, any macro and all macros refer to the macros that include a call to s.𝗸𝗺⇾MacroUpdateChecker.}

---

If 1 is specified, a dialog similar to the following appears...

---

If + is specified, this appears...

Then if an entry is selected...

a dialog similar to the above appears...

---

Other Technical Details

• Since the subroutine immediately triggers the submacro to run in asynchronous mode, there is effectively no delay imposed on a calling macro.

• The submacro logic accommodates differing version conventions, e.g.,

  • MACRO: Augment or Transform Text, v8.0
  • Augment or Transform Text, Version 8.1.3
  • Augment or Transform Text, 8.0.1 beta 2

• The submacro first checks for network and forum availability before attempting to check for macro updates.

---

---

@noisneil (or anyone else), please provide feedback!

Is this feature-complete? Easy enough to follow?

In the past, I've always used this format in the title of my Macro Library category) threads:

MACRO: Augment or Transform Text, v8.0

But since commas are sometimes used within a macro name, maybe it would be better to require a semicolon:

MACRO: Augment or Transform Text; v8.0

Or here's a format that would be much more robust:

optional_ignored_prefix: macro_name «macro_version» optional_ignored_suffix

Since it is trivial to change a thread title, there seems to be very little downside if a more robust format is adopted before this logic is employed. Agree?