I've created a model with Uppaal in which several integer variables change over the course of time. Now I would like to save the values of the variables during the modelling process somewhere (best in xml or a text file). In the Uppaal documentation (https://www.it.uu.se/research/group/darts/uppaal/documentation.shtml) I found the method in point 13 (How do I export and interpret the traces from Uppaal?) and tried the Java API way already, in the hope that it can output the variables as well as the traces. Unfortunately this method seems to be limited to traces. Does anyone know a method to save the variable values from Uppaal?
Hopeful greetings,
Josi
Solution from the comments.
to export the variable value tractory over time, one may use SMC query in the verifier.
For example:
Typeset the following query: simulate 1 [<=300] { Gate.len }
Click Check
Right-click on the query, and from the popup menu choose Simulations (1)
Observe a new window popup with a plot
Right-click on the plot and choose Export Comma Separated Values
Follow the save file dialog and observe the resulting file to contain time and value sequence.
Note that SMC assumes that all channels are broadcast and there are no deadlocks.
How would one achieve the same result. I believe the keybinding for macOS Intellij is op+up/down and on windows it is alt+w/d.
Essentially the function highlights the current word, then, with successive presses, expands out to the full string/line/area in-between parenthesis/further out to the next set of parenthesis. Very useful for developing in LISP.
The closest I've gotten is this: https://vi.stackexchange.com/a/19028
Try this plug in: https://github.com/terryma/vim-expand-region
It expands selections based on Vim’s text objects.
Well this may seem comfortable but does not correspondent with the internal logic of vim itself.
See, in vim everything you enter is like a sentence. va{ for example: there is a verb v -> visually select and an object (or movement) { -> paragraph. In this case there is also a modifier a around. You can exchange stuff in this sentence and it will still work vaw, dil, cB and so on. The power of vim is greatly based on that concept.
Of course you can write a function that does vaw first, then S-v and lastly va{ but that will only work with visual selection. It will not work with c or d or anything. So I will recommend to get used to use different keys for different actions.
The visual selection is mostly not needed anyway. Change a paragraph? directly use ca} and so on.
I have found that VI/VA + WOBO (as many times as you need to expand) works similarly. Not as fast but its the same concept and you can even expand/shrink asymmetrically based on your WO's and BO's (Or OW's and OB's depending on how you look at it)
Enterprise Architect 13.5.
I made MDG technology extending Object metatype. I have a shape script for my stereotype working well. I need to print several predefined run-state parameters for element. Is it possible to access to run-state params within Shape ?
As Geert already commented there is no direct way to get the runstate variables from an object. You might send a feature request to Sparx. But I'm pretty sure you can't hold your breath long enough to see it in time (if at all).
So if you really need the runstate in the script the only way is to use an add-in. It's actually not too difficult to create one and Geert has a nice intro how to create it in 10 minutes. In your shape script you can print a string restult returned from an operation like
print("#addin:myAddIn,pFunc1#")
where myAddIn is the name of the registered operation and pFunc1 is a parameter you pass to it. In order to control the script flow you can use
hasproperty('addin:myAddIn,pFunc2','1')
which evaluates the returned string to match or not match the string 1.
I once got that to work with no too much hassle. But until now I never had the real need to use it somewhere in production. Know that the addin is called from the interpreted script for each shaped element on the diagram and might (dramatically) affect rendering times.
I am doing some boolean operation on Nef polyhedra converted from regular polyhedra. After doing the boolean operation I want to convert the resulting Nef polyhedra into regular polyhedra. However it seems that Nef polyhedra only support if the result is a single volume. Some boolean operations however result in multiple volumes. Is there a way to split the Nef polyhedron into into the discrete volumes it contains and convert these back to regular polyhedra separately? Alternatively is there some more appropriate approach?
I have found the Nef_polyhedron_3::Volume and the corresponding iterator, but i have not been able to identify a way to utilize these to split up the Nef Polyhedron.
Edit:
I finally got around to properly look at this. The code provided worked almost out of the box. I ran in to a few issues that were pretty easily solved. First, i implemented BuildPolyhedronFromShell outside the Nef_polyhedron class as i would like to keep my CGAl Implementation as clean as possible. It was however necessary to make Nef_polyhedron_3::Triangulation_handler2 public, as it is used in BuildPolyhedronFromShell.
Additionally the code initially create shells with inward facing normals. This was fixed by changing Halffacet_const_handle f = opposite_facet->twin(); to Halffacet_const_handle f = opposite_facet; I don't know if this solves the problem in the general case, but i works for the cases i tried.
Thank you for the help.
I am trying to build a model that will have slightly different equations based on whether or not certain components exist (in my case, fluid ports).
A code like the following will not work:
parameter Boolean use_component=false;
Component component if use_component;
equation
if use_component then
component.x = 0;
end if;
How can I work around this?
If you want to use condition components, there are some restrictions you need to be aware of. Section 4.4.5 of the Modelica 3.3 specification sums it up nicely. It says "If the condition is false, the component, its modifiers, and any connect equations
involving the component, are removed". I'll show you how to use this to solve your problem in just a second, but first I want to explain why your solution doesn't work.
The issue has to do with checking the model. In your case, it is obvious that the equation component.x and the component component either both exist or neither exist. That is because you have tied them to the same Boolean variable. But what if you had don't this:
parameter Real some_number;
Component component if some_number*some_number>4.0;
equation
if some_number>=-2 and some_number<=2 then
component.x = 0;
end if;
We can see that this logically identical to your case. There is no chance for component.x to exist when component is absent. But can we prove such things in general? No.
So, when conditional components were introduced, conservative semantics were implemented which can always trivially ensure that the sets of variables and equations involved never get "out of sync".
Let us to return to what the specification says: "If the condition is false, the component, its modifiers, and any connect equations
involving the component, are removed"
For your case, the solution could potentially be quite simple. Depending on how you declare "x", you could just add a modification to component, i.e.
parameter Boolean use_component=false;
Component component(x=0) if use_component;
The elegance of this is that the modification only applies to component and if component isn't present, neither is the modification (equation). So the variable x and its associated equation are "in sync". But this doesn't work for all cases (IIRC, x has to have an input qualifier for this to work...maybe that is possible in your case?).
There are two remaining alternatives. First, put the equation component.x inside component. The second is to introduce a connector on component that, if connected, will generate the equation you want. As with the modification case (this is not a coincidence), you could associate x with an input connector of some kind and then do this:
parameter Boolean use_component;
Component component if use_component;
Constant zero(k=0);
equation
connect(k.y, component.x);
Now, I could imagine that after considering all three cases (modification, internalize equation and use connect), you come to the conclusion that none of them will work. If this is the case, then I would humbly suggest that you have an issue with how you have designed the component. The reason these restrictions arise is related to the necessity to check components by themselves for correctness. This requires that the component be complete ("balanced" in the terminology of the specification).
If you cannot solve the problem with approaches I mentioned above, then I suspect you really have a balancing issue and that you probably need to redefine the boundaries of your component somehow. If this is the case, I would suggest you open another question here with details of what you are trying to do.
I think that the reason why this will not work is that the parser will look for the declaration of the variable "component.x" that, if the component is not active, does not exist. It does not work even if you insert the "Evaluate=true" in the annotation.
The cleanest solution in my opinion is to work at equation level and enable different sets of equations in the same block. You can create a wrapper model with the correct connectors and paramenters, and then if it is a causal model for example you can use replaceable classes in order to parameterize the models as functions, or else, in case of acausal models, put the equations inside if statements.
Another possible workaround is to place two different models inside one block, so you can use their variables into the equation section, and then build up conditional connections that will enable the usage of the block with the choosen behaviour. In other words you can build up a "wrap model" with two blocks inside, and then place the connection equations to the connectors of the wrap model inside if statements. Remember to build up the model so that there will be a consistent system of quations even for the blocks that are not used.
But this is not the best solution, because if the blocks are big you will have to wait longer time for compilation since everything will be compiled.
I hope this will help,
Marco
You can also make a dummy component that is not visible in the graphical layer:
connector DummyHeatPort
"Dummy heatport to facilitate optional heatport. Use this with a conditional heatport by connecting it to the heatport. Then use the -DummyHeatPort.Q_flow in the thermal energy balance."
Modelica.SIunits.Temperature T "Port temperature";
flow Modelica.SIunits.HeatFlowRate Q_flow
"Heat flow rate (positive if flowing from outside into the component)";
end DummyHeatPort;
Then when this gets used in a two port model
Modelica.Thermal.HeatTransfer.Interfaces.HeatPort_a heatport if use_heat_port;
DummyHeatPort dummy_heatport;
...
equation
flowport_a.H_flow + flowport_b.H_flow - dummy_heatport.Q_flow = storage
"thermal energy balance";
connect(dummy_heatport, heatport);
This way the heatport gets used if present but does not cause an error otherwise.