There is a subsystem in my model called 'addBlock'. Inside it, I generate InPorts during Mask Initialization based on the number of inputs that the user specifies. For example, if the user says there are going to be six blocks connecting to this subsystem, I generate 6 input ports.
Now, say I specified six inputs. The first time I double click the block and specify this it creates 6 inputs. However, if I double click the mask again and hit OK, it creates 6 more inputs numbered 7 through 12.
What I would thus like to do is to delete everything within the subsystem every time I open the mask and start creating blocks from scratch. Is there any way of getting a list of every block that exists within a subsystem?
Thanks in advance.
I found the answer for this, in case anyone in the future looks it up. The method is to use
Simulink.SubSystem.deleteContents(gcb);
The gcb bit returns the name of the current block, which would be the block you want anyway because you're in that block's mask. Also, note the different camelCases. The solution is a bit inelegant because the whole subsystem needs to be created from scratch, but it does the job.
Related
My goal is to build a 5x5 grid of images. In the following code, row, col and rowcol were created as variables local to the sprite, and newcol, newrow and cats are global. (By the way, is it possible to tell which variables are local and which are global? It's easy to forget or make mistakes.)
The result is a 5x1 grid only, as seen here.
I am unclear as to the order of execution of these statements. Does when I start as a clone get called before or after add_cat gets called the second time? My tentative conclusion is that it gets called afterwards, yet the clone's global variables seem to contain their values from beforehand instead.
When I attempted to debug it with ask and say and wait commands, the results varied wildly. Adding such pauses in some places fixed the problem completely, resulting in a 5x5 grid. In other places, they caused a 1x5 grid.
The main question is: How to fix this so that it produces a 5x5 grid?
Explanation
Unfortunately, the execution order in Scratch is a little bizarre. Whenever you edit a script (by adding or removing blocks, editing inputs, or dragging the entire script to a new location in the editor), it gets placed at the bottom of the list (so it runs last).
A good way to test this out is to create a blank project with the following scripts:
When you click the green flag, the sprite will either say "script one" or "script two", depending on which runs first. Try clicking and dragging one of the when green flag clicked blocks. The next time you click the green flag, the sprite will say whichever message corresponds to the script you just dragged.
This crazy order can make execution incredibly unpredictable, especially when using clones.
The solution
The only real solution is to write code that has a definite execution order built-in (rather than relying on the whims of the editor). For simpler scripts, this generally means utilizing the broadcast and wait block to run particular events in the necessary order.
For your specific project, I see two main solutions:
Procedural Solution
This is the most straightforward script, and it's probably what I would choose to go with:
(row and col are both sprite-only variables)
Because clones inherit all sprite-only variable values when they are created, each clone will be guaranteed to have the correct row and col when it is created.
Recursive Solution
This solution is a bit harder to understand than the first, so I would probably avoid it unless you're just looking for the novelty:
I am using Simulink to model a waste recycling plant out of a number of masked blocks that I created, representing sorting steps, buffers etc. Each module (that is, a masked block) has a failure probability, modeled using Discrete Events. If a failure event occurs, a triggered subsystem calls an Interpreted Matlab Function ("outside" of simulink). This function is supposed to set a parameter status of the masked block representing the module that failed as well as the upstream modules' status to 0 (because obviously, everything upstream has to stop as well or the material will just pile up).
`set_param(gcb, 'status', num2str(status));
PortConnectivity = get_param(gcb,'PortConnectivity');
sources = PortConnectivity.SrcBlock;`
Basically, this will be looped until I reach a block with no own Source Block.
This all works quite well, except for one problem: The gcb command gives me the block path to the last block I highlighted manually, and not to the block that called the Interpreted Matlab function. Is there any way to get the calling block's handle (which I would use with it's Parents parameter to access the Mask's status)? (A similar question has been asked here, with no results...)
I hope you get my problem - I'll be happy to elaborate if anything's unclear; I am not claiming to be a Simulink expert, so sorry for maybe using wrong terminology.
Ok, for everyone stumbling upon this:
For the mask that contains the caller of the Matlab Interpreted Function, in the mask editor I define a parameter 'this_block' (turn visibility off), that I initialize in the Initialisation pane using
parent = get_param(gcb,'Parent');
set_param(gcb, 'this_block','Parent')
Since this masked block (responsible for modelling the failure and its upstream communication) is itself used in another masked block also present in the library (responsible for modeling the module's behaviour), I also had to check "Allow library blocks to modify it's contents" in the mask editor Inititlization pane of the parent's mask. The parameter 'this_block' is then handed over as one of the input arguments of the called function (in my case, status_communication(u, this_block)).
OK, I've been struggling with this for a while. What is the best way to accomplish the following:
where Reaction Wheel 1-4 are links to the same block in a library. When the Speed Counter, Speed Direction and Current signals are added to the final bus output as shown, MATLAB (rightfully) complains:
Warning: Signals 9, 10, 11, 12 entering Bus Creator
'myAwesomeModel' have duplicated names 'Current'. These are being made unique
by appending "(signal #)" to the signals within the resulting bus. Please
update the labels of the signals such that they are all unique.
Until now I've been using a "solution" like this:
that is, place a size-1-mux/gain-of-1/other-dummy block in the middle, so the signals can be renamed into something unique. However, I really like to believe that The MathWorks has thought of a better way to do this...
What is the "proper" way to construct bus signals like this? It feels rather like I'm being pushed to adopt a particular design/architecture, but what that is precisely, eludes me for the moment...
It was quite a challenge for me but looks like I kinda sorted it out. Matlab R2007a here. I'll do the example with an already done subsystem, with its inputs, outputs, ...
1- In Block Properties, add a tag to the block. This will be done to identify the block and its "siblings" among the system. MY_SUBSYSTEM for this example.
2- Block Properties again. Add the following snippet in CopyFcn callback:
%Find total amount of copies of the block in system
len = length(find_system(gcs,'Tag','MY_SUBSYSTEM'));
%Get handle of the block copied/added and name the desired signal accordingly
v = get_param(gcb,'PortHandles');
set(v.Outport(_INDEX_OF_PORT_TO_BE_RENAMED_),'SignalNameFromLabel',['BASENAME_HERE' num2str(len)]);
3- In _INDEX_OF_PORT_TO_BE_RENAMED_ you should put the port signal index (starting from 1) that you want to have renamed for each copy of the block. For a single output block this should be 1. BASENAME_HERE should be the port basename, in this case "Current" for you.
4- Add the block to the desired library, and delete the instance you used to create this example. From there on, as you add from the library or copy an existing block, the outport should name Current1, Current2, Current3, and so on. Notice that you could apply any convention or formatting.
Hope this helps. It worked for me, don't hesitate to ask/criticize!
Note: Obviously, as the model grows, this method may be computer-demanding as find_system will have to loop through the entire model, however looks like a good workaround for me in small-medium sized systems.
Connect a Bus Selector to each Data Output. Select the signals you want and set "Output as bus". Then connect all Bus Selectors to a Bus Creator.
simulink model
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.