Fairly self explanatory?
Asked before about ISNOT mapping and was explained that it was not possible given the structure of mapping.
However can we do AND/&&?
My example.
Have a course order group.
It is based on order state changed where state is the course.
Currently have the change course automation command mapped to enabled on Starters,Mains,Desserts which are the Kitchen Course states but would like to disable the button once the orders are submitted.
Tried New,Starters,Mains,Desserts and Status=New,Starters,Mains,Desserts but this obviously just enabled on all New orders.
You change those states to something else not mapped as visible.
But that would then update the group, to do that would need to change the rules to set group directly and just have a can change course state.
Not sure why I did states and group from state updated but in place now, think it was when I was originally testing change course not updating group as states are visible after update up group was not updating until added the âpatchâ product then cancelled itâŚ
Opted for setting visible state to New, although am not a fan of having buttons come and go as prefer position to be the same and just enable/disable them but will do for nowâŚ
You may have to create combined state like New-Starter, New-Main,New-Dessert. Map automation to this new combined state
Listing multiple states comma separated is the same thing as AND. You probably need to use a different state for that like Sukasem suggested.
Sorry, its not the same as AND && because you cant have New Orders && Unpaid && Locked states all at the same time.
Its OR 
I just solved for my situation though, set the update order group action on the order state updated rule to order state == New so that once submitted it didnt update and added a action to clear the kitchen state on ticket close (submit)
This inspired the solution 
The thing is its not evaluating like that. Its not evaluating an expression. Its simple matching. This was explained before. What I responded with probably confused you because I was not using the AND expression evaluation I simply meant and.
I was only asking
The question I asked a while back was regarding negative/isnot matchingâŚ
Worked around it anyway
I know and it was explained then that its not evaluating like an expression. Its simple matchingâŚ
Database relations⌠not script evaluation.
Id imagine LIKE IN given its a comma separated listâŚ
Sorry JTR but this request is not possible unless he completely reworks how it works and making it evaluate like expressions adds a lot of complexity to something that should be simple.
You can get the effect your wanting it just requires a little more work with states. I think you got the idea though.
I wasnât saying it like that
Was saying I understand and was guessing it was using sql LIKE IN which needs a comma separated list.