[2.0.15] Belt enable + belt hold all belts Doesn't work as expected.

[credomane]

Reproduction Steps:

1. Setup a belt loop.
2. Setup two belts off to the side.
3. Connect up the circuit network on the loop to one of side belts.
4. Set the loop belt to "read belt hold all"
5. Set the side belt to "Enable when Everything < 10".
6. Setup an arithmetic combinator and have it set to "Each + 0 output A".
7. Input of the combinator goes to the loop belt and the output to the other side belt.
8. Set combinator's side belt to "A < 10".
9. Drop 9 of one item and then 1 of a different item on the belt loop.

Expected Results:
There are now 10 items on the belt so both side belts should be disabled.

Actual Results:
The "Everything < 10" belt says enabled even though "Everything < 10" is not longer true (Everything = 10).
The combinator's belt does disable as expected since "A = 10" isn't less than 10.

Observations:
It acts more like "Each" because if any one item is 10 or more it does disable.

Demonstration:

11-09-2024, 22-35-54.png (888.22 KiB) Viewed 223 times

[boskid]

I feel like i got click baited. Not a bug.

1/ Belt enable is not related to this bug report, you could use a lamp and it would behave exactly the same. It is just an indicator for your description
2/ belt hold all is not related to this bug report, you could use a constant combinator and it would behave exactly the same. It is just a signal source.
3/ You did not read description of "signal-everything".

Those two setups are expected to behave differently so when reporting them working differently means i have to move this to not a bug.

I was thinking about making a "sum" special signal that would be usable in cases exactly like this (it would behave as a signal of a value that is sum of all signals) but it was quite confusing to use.

[credomane]

Sorry I wasn't intending to click bait. lol.

Taking a closer look at my other "Everything < #" stuff that work...they are all single item things. Well damn...Village Idiot strikes again! I read the description but my expectation bias was too strong and overrode the descriptions explicit information.