At the risk of being met with more anger, what other users are attempting to explain here is that the use of arrays with the value, as you were using, is undocumented behaviour. That does not mean that it's wrong, or that it is right. I read back through a couple different versions of the documentation, and I can't find it being documented in previous documentation. It did work, I believe you on your word immediately. But with it being undocumented behaviour it might simply be that it stopped working because the developer further improved the code to make it handle comparisons stricter to prevent unexpected behaviour from happening. It might not have been on purpose to make your existing flows stop working. This is why the documentation keeps being pointed out. The documentation describes that it should work if you use the values directly, but doesn't mention that it would work if you were to pass those values in arrays. Turning that aspect around, it doesn't say that using arrays with the values inside would work. I think that's what Colin tried to ask about at the start of this topic.
So if I would be to look for help, I should find a workaround...which I did, but its unpleasent as fk, thats why I wrote here.
Man, the 2 things you claimed here, contradict with each other
Find help is not finding workaround...what you wrote now, just means, dont look for help here 
Which I guess I won't anymore, since @Colin posted 5 posts helping nothing, asking things I already stated in first post, then belying me...
Please guys, no matter how much of you come and write to me, facts stay facts, and I only learned not to come here anymore...not that I did a lot either...
Yes you are right, but please explain to me why your fellas come here, now there are fkin 4 admins writing to me, and ONLY because I called out the BS Colin was saying?
Also, pls explain to me, why you want to, no matter what, write something regarding my problem, when you have no idea about the node itself...
Literally, if any of you just simply said, "Pls look at the github, we have no idea what could be the root of the behaviour of the node", all this shite wouldn't have been written.
All you did here is scarred me off using this forum, and maybe, sometimes, contributing to it, because of the belying and nonsense, irrelevant, demeaning (read the readme...) style you all used as a communication state...
Sorry you feel that way.
But one shouldn't forget, that most of the people here do all of this on their free time, not getting paid for anything.
Colin did the correct thing in his position (no knowing the node and the code), he pointed you to the documentation and found out, that you were using it in an undocumented manner. That's neither your nor his fault. Just a coincidence that it worked. He even took the time to look up on Github issues.
As I can see now, many of us have invested some of their time in your issue, but you continue attacking people and being ungrateful. Thanks for that, it really takes the fun out of helping people for me at the moment.
Think of the other side of this, how friendly and helpful most people here are. Don't let the exceptions worry you, just ignore them. Some forums are like that all the time, sadly.
Just a last post, cause this is ridiculous as fk....
I recorded with shadowplay, that you just made my very last post hidden (Colin writing 5 irrelevant, demeaning and belying posts), which did NOT contain anything against your rules, just pointed out that you admins seem to lie here a lot for nothing...
Again, recorded, took 2 secs, anytime someone asks me if they should come here for help, I will show them this nonsense....
I'll try to do one last attempt to calmly respond, but I believe it might be time to lock the topic. As to why there are more "admins" responding, I'm not an admin, but as a regular user I got asked to help with moderating, and as such I do. I can openly admit here that I flagged 2 of your posts to request the attention of others as I did not feel to take actions just based on my own opinions. Before that, it was just Colin reading, and me starting to answer. Dave, @dceejay is actually a core developer on the node-red project, and was responding as such.
I'm not trying to be demeaning, belying or anything else. As far as I can say, the way Colin responded to you was similar to how I would have responded if I had seen your topic the first. Like me, Colin and Mike were asked to assist with the moderating. As such, we shouldn't be seen as admins, as we're not.
Once again, I'd like to explain the concept of undocumented behaviour. I directly believe that what you did before used to work, without doubt. It being not documented does not mean it won't work. But it holds no guarantees that it will still work in the future, for example, when you update to a newer version. As Dave says, there's several solutions pointed out: You can roll back to your previous version where your flow worked without a problem. You can write to the developer on Github to ask about the behaviour. You can change your flow/function to follow the documented behaviour from the Readme. All those options are valid. Beyond that, there isn't much that we can suggest. We didn't write this node, or don't even have the hardware to work with it. Philips HUE lights are still on my wish list, but I'm waiting for the finances to support them and properly roll it out. That does not mean we can't study the code, or the github issues list for things that could explain what is going on, or the history of the documentation for example.
One final point and then it's time for me to cook dinner, using undocumented behaviour is no guarantee it will keep working forever. And the behaviour of one node where passing arrays as values is valid, does not mean that this specific node (where it may have worked but undocumented) will have it working too.
