I have a series of ToFile blocks in my Simulink model that each have a unique filename (e.g. "Pulse.mat". I want to store the results of my simulation in timestamped folders based roughly on when I hit the run button / use the sim command.
My solution was to write two scripts, one called during the InitFcn callback and one for the StopFcn/CloseFcn callback (and PreSaveFcn callback).
The InitFcn callback would find all ToFile blocks and change the filename from "Pulse.mat" to something like "../runs//Pulse.mat", and the StopFcn/CloseFcn/PreSaveFcn to revert them to their original ".mat" names. This worked on my small test model, however when I attempted to integrate it into my actual model I receive the following error:
Error evaluating 'StopFcn' callback of block_diagram '<model_name>'.
Caused by:
Cannot change parameter 'Filename' of '<ToFile Block>' while simulation is running. The block was made virtual as it was optimized for simulation
From my research I discovered that the StopFcn actually executes before the simulation is "done" (for whatever reason), but why did it work in my initial test model? Do my ToFile blocks in my actual model have some property set that causes this error to occur?
The block has been virtualised in your larger model; which seems to be changing the execution point. One option might be to untick 'Block Reduction' in the 'Optimisation' pane of the model configuration parameters dialogue.
Alternatively, there might be another approach that you could try -
Setting the model properties 'StartFcn' to something like :
evalin('base','resultTimTag = datestr(clock, ''yyyymmdd_HHhMM'');')
and setting the model properties 'StopFcn' to :
targetDir = evalin('base','resultTimTag');
mkdir(targetDir);
outputs = dir('*.mat');
for i=1:length(outputs)
movefile(outputs(i).name,targetDir);
end
evalin('base','clear resultTimeTag');
It's possibly a little more brute-force than your approach, but seems to work quite nicely...
I've been having a lot of trouble getting simulink's block callbacks to run, and the documentation is woefully inadequate and disorganized. It seems that I'm misunderstanding multiple points of how Simulink compiles models, but since StackOverflow dislikes multi-part questions, I will post them one at a time.
The situation: I have a library of components, each of which is a virtual subsystem whose parameters are defined through the masks. Block A has Parameter a which is sent to the base workspace using the 'assignin' command.
Next, the block B has a parameter b which is initialized in the Initialization tab of the mask.
Finally, the StartFcn callback of the block B runs a script which needs to reference both a and b to calculate c. In the script, I reference a simply as a because it's in the 'base' workspace, and I reference b using get_param(gcb,'b').
Now, this last command works when the parameter b is a user input (so it's a constant value). But in my case, this b is calculated using other parameters in the Initialization tab. And for some reason, in the script, this parameter is always zero.
I added a display within the block B to see what these values are, and they are clearly non-zero.
Can someone please explain why the script cannot seem to get the real value of the areas out of the block?
You can get the masked workspace variable using getworkspacevariable
I am currently working on a tool written in M-Script that executes a set of checks on a given simulink model. This tool does not compile/execute the model, I'm using find_system and get_param to retrieve all the information I need in order to run the routines of my tool.
I've reached a point where I need to determine whether a certain block has direct-feedthrough or not. I am not entirely sure how to do this. Two possible solutions come to mind:
A property might store this information and might be accessible via get_param. After investigating this, I could not find any such property.
Some block types have direct-feedthrough (Sum, Logic, ...), some other do not (Unit Delay, Integrator), so I could use the block type to determine whether a block has direct-feedthrough or not. Since I'm not an experienced Simulink modeller, I'm not sure if its possible to tell whether a block has direct-feedthrough by solely looking at its block type. Also, this would require a lookup table including all Simulink block types. An impossible task, since additional block types might get added to Simulink via third party modules.
Any help or pointers to possible solutions are greatly appreciated.
after some further research...
There is an "official solution" by Matlab:
just download the linked m-file
It shows that my idea was not that bad ;)
and for the record, my idea:
I think it's doable quite easily. I cannot present you some code yet, but I'll see what I can do. My idea is the following:
programatically create a new model
Add a Constant source block and a Terminator
add the Block you want to get to know the direct feedthrough ability in the middle
add_lines
run the simulation and log the states, which will give you the xout variable in the workspace.
If there is direct feedthrough the vector is empty, otherwise not.
probably you need to include some try/catch error catching for special cases
This way you can analyse a block for direct feedthrough by just migrating it to another model, without compiling your actual main model. It's not the fastest solution, but I can not imagine that performance matters that much for you.
Here we go, this script works fine for my examples:
function feedthrough = hasfeedthrough( input )
% get block path
blockinfo = find_system('simulink','Name',input);
blockpath = blockinfo{1};
% create new system
new_system('feed');
open_system('feed');
% add test model elements
src = add_block('simulink/Sources/Constant','feed/Constant');
src_ports = get_param(src,'PortHandles');
src_out = src_ports.Outport;
dest = add_block('simulink/Sinks/To Workspace','feed/simout');
dest_ports = get_param(dest,'PortHandles');
dest_in = dest_ports.Inport;
test = add_block(blockpath,'feed/test');
test_ports = get_param(test,'PortHandles');
test_in = test_ports.Inport;
test_out = test_ports.Outport;
add_line('feed',src_out,test_in);
add_line('feed',test_out,dest_in);
% setup simulation
set_param('feed','StopTime','0.1');
set_param('feed','Solver','ode3');
set_param('feed','FixedStep','0.05');
set_param('feed','SaveState','on');
% run simulation and get states
sim('feed');
% if condition for blocks like state space
feedthrough = isempty(xout);
if ~feedthrough
a = simout.data;
if ~any(a == xout);
feedthrough = ~feedthrough;
end
end
delete system
close_system('feed',1)
delete('feed');
end
When enter for example 'Gain' it will return 1, when you enter 'Integrator' it will return 0.
Execution time on my ancient machine is 1.3sec, not that bad.
Things you probably still have to do:
add another parameter, to define whether the block is continuous or discrete time and set the solver accordingly.
test some "extraordinary" blocks, maybe it's not working for everything. Also I haven implemented anything which could deal with logic, but actually the constant is 1 so it should work as well.
Just try out everything, at least it's a good base for you to work on.
A famous exception is the StateSpace Block which can have direct feedthrough AND states. But there are not sooo much standard blocks with this "behaviour". If you also have to deal with third party blocks you could get into some trouble, I have to admit that.
possible solution for the state space: if one compares xout with yout than one can find another indicator for direct feedthrough: if there is, the vectors are not equal. If so, than they are equal. Just an example, but I can imagine that it is possible to find more general ways to test things like that.
besides the added simout block above one needs the condition:
% if condition for blocks like state space
feedthrough = isempty(xout);
if ~feedthrough
a = simout.data;
if ~any(a == xout);
feedthrough = ~feedthrough;
end
end
From the documentation:
Tip
To determine if a block has direct feedthrough:
Double-click the
block. The block parameter dialog box opens.
Click the Help button in
the block parameter dialog box. The block reference page opens.
Scroll
to the Characteristics section of the block reference page, which
lists whether or not that block has direct feedthrough.
I couldn't find a programmatic equivalent though...
Based on a similar approach to the one by #thewaywewalk, you could set up a temporary model that contains an algebraic loop, similar to,
(Note that you would replace the State-Space block with any block that you want to test.)
Then set the diagnostics to error out if there is an algebraic loop,
If an error occurs when the model is compiled
>> modelname([],[],[],'compile');
(and you should check that it is the Algebraic Loop error that has occured), then the block has direct feed though.
If no error occurs then the block does not have direct feed though.
At this point you would need to terminate the model using
>> modelname([],[],[],'term');
If the block has multiple inports or outprts then you'll need to iterate over all combinations of them.
I have got some inputs in my model that are passed through the environment controller block. In this way, I can use test inputs (fixed or configurable parameters) in simulation and the top-level input ports for Embedded Code Generation. However, I need to check the outputs of my model (after simulation) on a scope.
I was hoping that there is way I can use something similar to environment controller block in order to ignore scope blocks when I generate code. In this way, I can still view my outputs but not worry about any unnecessary blocks getting error-flagged during code generation checking. Is there any way to do it or is it "Automatically" ignored when generating code. Has anyone come across this?
KR,
I'm having serious trouble debugging the following Matlab Warning:
Warning: Ignoring excess mask dialog entries in:
(path to block under mask of block of Simulink model I'm running)
Does anybody know what it even means? What are "mask dialog entries"?
It means that the block saved in your .mdl file has too many parameters saved in the MaskValueString parameter. This shouldn't happen during normal use, but it can happen if you directly do a set_param the MaskValueString parameter on the masked block instead of using the dialog, and you end up setting more values than there are parameters. Simulink will just ignore all of the extra parameters in this case.
I think if you resave the model that the masked block lives in, the warning should go away. Just make sure your block has the right parameter values on the dialog.
I'm not absolutely sure, but I suspect that it means that you've got too many attributes defined in your block mask?
Is the mask particularly complex?
You could examine the mask definition by right clicking on the block and selecting "edit mask" - which will bring up the mask editor, and allow you to examine what attributes of the block are being defined via its mask.
Or I could be completely wrong....