I find the requirements by searching for subsystems, as there seems to be no special block for requirements.
find_system(gcs,'LookUnderMasks','none','FollowLinks','off','BlockType','SubSystem','LinkStatus','none')
I get all the subsystems, including :
'test_simulinkmodel/SLVnV Internal Requirement Sub Block Name 1'
Is there some other way than to look for this (default?)string?
Also, when I know the path, is there some way to get the contents (Titles, descriptions?)
Which release are you using? In the latest release (R2013a), there is the System Requirements block. You can also generate (and customize) a requirements report, which should also work in earlier releases (I remember using it in R2011a for example).
In the R2017b release, MathWorks released a new product called Simulink Requirements that lets you author and manage requirements within Simulink. You can link requirements to design objects in Simulink as well as to test cases and their results.
Related
I'm working on a large data analysis that incorporates lots of different elements and hence I make heavy use of external toolboxes and functions from file exchange and github. Adding them all to the path via startup.m is my current working method but I'm running into problems of shadowing function names across toolboxes. I don't want to manually change function names or turn them into packages, since a) it's a lot of work to check for shadowing and find all function calls and more importantly b) I'm often updating the toolboxes via git. Since I'm not the author all my changes would be lost.
Is there programmatic way of packaging the toolboxes to create their own namespaces? (With as little overhead as possible?)
Thanks for the help
You can achieve this. Basic idea is to make all functions in a private folder and have only one entry point visible. This entry point is the only file seeing the toolbox, and at the same time it sees the toolbox function first regardless of the order in the search path.
toolbox/exampleToolbox.m
function varargout=exampleToolbox(fcn,varargin)
fcn=str2func(fcn);
varargout=cell(1,nargout);
[varargout{:}]=fcn(varargin{:});
end
with toolbox/exampleToolbox/private/foo.m beeing an example function.
Now you can call foo(1,2,3) via exampleToolbox('foo',1,2,3)
The same technique could be used generating a class. This way you could use exampleToolbox.foo(1,2,3)
I implemented a (medium to big) simulink model in v2012b.
I thought it would work also in 2010bSP2, but it didn't. Some mask blocks are not opening and other strange errors.
In previous versions of simulink there was a "save as simulink 201x" model to force compatibility, but I couldn't find it anymore in 2012b.
Any clues on how to avoid rework?
Starting with 2012b, and the new interface, they have moved the option to the menu:
File / Export Model to / Previous Version
The feature never seems to fully work, and I often get warnings when first loading a model into an older version, so I would recommend giving your model a thorough check over and test. I always save again from the correct version, to clear the warnings.
The refactoring for a New Simulink Version can show up at several points.
Your own libraries: There is a feature called "Forwarding Tables" that allows you to specify where a block in the new library is (I suppose you will have to refactor your libraries as well, and probably someone else uses those libraries too)
It sounds like a biiig hack (and it is) but i found it sometimes the path of lowest resistantce... Just open your model in the Editor of your choice and replace the block paths whith the common refactoring funcitons. It is terrible i know but Simulink really lacks of refactoring functions...
I'm looking for a tool to convert a SBML model into a Matlab function. I've tried SBMLTranslate() function from libSBML but this returns a Matlab struct, not a function. Does anybody know if such tool exists? Thanks
There are at least three efforts in this direction:
Frank Bergmann offers an online service for SBML translation where you can upload an SBML file and it will generate a MATLAB file. The comments at the top of the generated MATLAB file explain how to use the results. The C++ source code is available on SourceForge.
Bergmann's code referenced above was used by Stanley Gu to create sbml2matlab, a Windows standalone program. Off-hand, I don't know whether Gu's version changed or enhanced the algorithm used by the Bergmann version, but it seems likely. (Note: Gu now works at Google and does not maintain this code anymore, as far as I know.)
The Systems Biology Format Converter (SBFC) is a framework written principally by Nicolas Rodriguez; it includes a collection of converters, one of which is an SBML-to-MATLAB converter. This converter is written in Java.
I have not compared the results of the translators myself yet, so cannot speak to the differences or quality of output. If you try them and have any feedback to relate, please let the authors know. Knowing what has or hasn't worked for real users will help improve things in the future.
A final caveat is that all of these have been research projects, so make sure to set your expectations accordingly. (This is not a criticism of the authors; the authors are very good – I know most of them personally – but the reality of academic development work is that we all lack the time and resources to make these systems comprehensive, hardened, polished, and documented to the degree that we wish we could.)
I'm struggling with the size of output files for large Modelica models. Off course, I can protect some objects in order to remove them completely from the result file. However, that gives rise to two problems:
it's not possible to redeclare protected objects
if i want to test my model in detail (eg for a short time period), i need to declare those objects publicly again in order to see their variables
I wonder if there's a trick to set the 'verbosity' of a Modelica model. Maybe what I would like is a third keyword next to public, protected, eg. transparent. Then, when setting up a simulation, I want be able to set the verbosity level to 1, or 2 with the following effect:
1--> consider all transparentelements as protected
2--> consider all transparentelements as public
This effect would propagate to all models and submodels.
I don't think this already exists. But is there an easy workaround?
Thanks,
Roel
As Michael Tiller wrote above, this is not handled the same way in all Modelica tools and there is no definite answer. To give an OpenModelica-specific answer, it's possible to use simulate(ModelName,outputFilter="regex"), to store only the variables that fully match the given regex (default is .*, matching any variable).
Roel,
I know several people wrestling with this issue. At the moment, all of this depends on the tool being used. I don't know how other tools handle filtering of results, but in Dymola you control it (as you point out) by giving the signals special qualifiers (e.g. protected).
One thing I've done in the past is to extend from a model and then add a bunch of output signals for things I'm interested in. Then you can select "Outputs" in Dymola to make sure those get in the results file. This is far from perfect because a) listing everything you want can get tedious and b) referencing protected variables is not strictly allowed (although Dymola lets you get away with it but issues a warning).
At Dassault, we are actively discussing this idea and hope to provide some better functionality along these lines. It isn't clear whether such functionality will be strictly tool specific or whether it will involve the language somehow. But if it is language related, we will (of course) work with the design group to formulate a specification that other tool vendors can support as well.
In SystemModeler, you go to the Settings tab in the Experiment Browswer in Simulation Center. Click on Output on the bottom and select which variables to store.
(The options are state variables, derivatives, algebraic variables, parameters, protected variables and if you mark the Store simulation log-option, you'll get some interesting statistics on events over time and function evaluations, opening another possibility to track down parts of the simulation and model that creates more evaluations)
I am not sure if this helps you, but in Dymola you can go to Simulation->Setup->Output and mark a checkbox saying "Store Protected variables". That way it is possible to declare most variables as protected: during normal simulation they are not stored, but when debugging your model, you just mark that checkbox and they are stored.
Of course that is not the same as your suggested keyword transparent, but maybe it helps a little...
A bit late, but in Dymola 2013 FD01 and later you can select which variables to store based on names (and model names) using the annotation __Dymola_selections, and even filter on user-defined tags - so you could create a tag name "transparent" in the model. See "Matching and variable selections" in the manual.
How to find out about a particular function or class in which version of Matlab/toolbox it was first introduced? I know I can look through all Release Notes, or Google can help sometime, but is there any better way?
Ditto Jonas ... there is no version history for specific functions.
One other thing you can do (if you didn't know this already) is, in your current version of Matlab, to check the value of exist('func'), where func is the name of the MATLAB function. The value this returns for matlab functions is 2, and for built-in functions it's 5.
If you're going for compatibility in your scripts, I would put a condition to check for that function existence before you use it. Otherwise, if you have multiple versions of MATLAB you can run a script to go through all of them or just do it by hand.
There isn't.
Except, if the place you work at has an active service contract with The MathWorks, you can send a service request and have them do the searching for you (be prepared to argue a bit if they just tell you to google the answer yorself). I do that from time to time in the hope that they'll eventually update the documentation.