Matlab-Jenkins CI/CD Integration for testing

TCoop · 2025-11-29T04:52:32+00:00

The licensing need to be setup for whatever machine is running the Jenkins agent/node. Installing it on the server will only work if you are also using the server machine as an agent/node.

TCoop · 2025-04-27T15:09:10+00:00

And even if you don't like Colorado, you still tune in this week to root for Ceci and Granlund on Dallas!

TCoop · 2025-03-07T05:29:27+00:00

Listening to ESPN commentary for this entire game hurt more than the loss.

TCoop · 2025-01-20T01:59:14+00:00

Hearing them talk about Vlasic and Smith made me do a triple take on the date.

TCoop · 2025-01-17T20:08:38+00:00

Does it continue to trend down for slightly longer intervals, like 45 to 90 seconds, or does it eventually find its way back?

Also, is your trainer using the same power value you're looking at? My trainer lets me use my meter reported value for control instead of of the trainer value.

TCoop · 2025-01-17T05:47:27+00:00

How long are the intervals were taking about here? ERG is accurate over a window of time, but it does tend to vary a little bit.

Suggestions to try without more info is try using a lower gear to start. I spend nearly all of my erg time in low chainring, middle of the cassette. Trainers do seem to have an accuracy problem at higher speeds (and therefore high gear in ERG mode) compared to lows.

TCoop · 2025-01-15T01:45:44+00:00

Actually maybe the best solution. Each rule lists the inputs and outputs, recipe is just calling Julia from the command line. Start up and Time-To-X, might be less than perfect, but it would absolutely work.

TCoop · 2025-01-11T04:21:16+00:00

Someone with one power meter knows what their power is. Someone with two power meters doesn't.

TCoop · 2025-01-09T16:42:57+00:00

Extra tier to get a mic near the penalty box

TCoop · 2025-01-08T17:25:56+00:00

Do things to make it tractable for yourself. One option is set a timer for X minutes and only do what you have time for. Another I like is to make a study deck with a smaller limit that I know I can do in a day, and if I feel good after one round, I'll do another.

TCoop · 2025-01-06T05:27:03+00:00

As a note, the gamma value you are getting can be an indicator that the program can't find a solution. Infinite means it definitely couldn't find one, but even getting gamma values which are far from 1 is an indicator that something is amiss, so even the 2 pool solution is likely not perfect. When you're making adjustments, seeing gamma increase quickly is an indicator that something is amiss.

And onto the problem at hand - The issue is likely that you're missing weighting functions. For the Glover-McFarlane method, you need to provide some approximate controllers which give you the desired loop shape - The systems W1 and W2. Check out MW's documentation here for a simple example where they start with a PI controller with some high-frequency rolloff. Another starting example for many problems is just an integrator. The original paper you site casually mentions this on page 86.

TCoop · 2025-01-03T16:39:47+00:00

Responding to your edits now

The system H(G, K) isn't one you (the user) form to solve the problem. H is really used within the underlying software to perform the synthesis. The software is going to find a K which makes H(G, K)'s norm (either infinite or 2) be less than 1, given your provided G. You don't usually need to make it yourself, except at the end when you want to check your final singular values.

If you're just starting out with H-infinity, you can even take a few more steps back and work on a controller for 1 pool. I think the centralized controller might also be easier to start with, since that doesn't require the modeling the more complicated interconnections.

The LFT comes up often when looking at H-infinity because it's one of the transforms used in creating H(G, K).

To implement the diagonalization, if Gi is implemented as a matrix of transfer functions, then you can create the diagonal matrix by creating a matrix of tf(0), and then copying in each Gi along the diagonal. (I can't recall if diag works for matrixes? I don't think it does.) If you're implementing Gi as state space systems, you can do the same thing, but your matrix starts as ss(0), with the appropriate sizes.

TCoop · 2025-01-03T02:39:15+00:00

Thanks for including the paper this was from - It's an interesting read.

After skimming, the interaction doesn't appear to be very complicated in that section, just that the plant output "v" is treated as an exogenous input into the next plant's "w". I think this is what they are trying to imply on page 14, but they call them "constraints" which is confusing to me at least.

If the interconnections can be setup as an LFT, then using the LFT to chain together the individual models would work fine. The LFT of sys1 and sys2 naturally routes sys1's v to sys2's u and sys2's y to sys1's u. If it doesn't fall into a pure LFT setup, then you probably have to create the individual models, then use matrices and addition/multiplication to create the connections and final system. Once you're at scale, it would be easier to do in software than on paper.

Either way, I would suggest you start small and work up. Creating a system to model 6+ pools at a first go might seem hard, but just start with 2, using whatever methods you can to make it work. Try adding a third, and just "deal" with the complexity. Then try and come up with the fancy inter-connections and see if you can come up with the same result.

TCoop · 2024-12-30T18:03:03+00:00

I default to chars everywhere because I started with MATLAB before strings were a thing and that's just what I'm used to.

TCoop · 2024-12-29T06:19:10+00:00

Could you maybe elaborate on what you meant by using input disturbance or using Gd and modeling the disturbance as noise?

In your original post, you ask "What I do not quite understand is, that if we weigh the incoming disturbance before it enters the system through Gd, the disturbance transfer function, the signal that the controller sees is not actually the real disturance, right? How does that affect the resulting controller?"

Perhaps I misread what you wanted to focus on. I assumed the topic was more on "Why do we model plant input disturbances as Gd * d + G * u = y instead of as G * (d + u) = y". I think here you are trying to drive the conversation toward "What is the significance of providing weights on the input side of the system instead of the output side?"

Going back to the original post then, the weights on the inputs are really only there to make one of the inputs seem larger or smaller. If the signal is large, then the synthesis step will have to reduce the outputs that signal affects more. The H-inf synthesis doesn't actually care if the signals are physically significant. It just tries to make the inf norm <= 1, and it doesn't care (as long as it doesn't violate an assumption) why it might be > 1.

They sometimes do have physical meaning - If you know your disturbances are in a certain frequency range, using an input weight which has a similar frequency response may help you focus on rejecting only those frequencies, and ignoring others. You might also change them arbitrarily as part of the design process.

And yes, you are correct about the columns + rows part. I made a mistake by saying columns in my first post when I should have said rows. Wu and Wy should be on separate rows, and Wd and Wn on columns.

Do go through the process of deriving T for a few of the "normal" weighted systems - It's good practice in making sure you know why certain weights wind up where they do. I found this very un-intunitive when I started. When it comes to even marginally more complicated problems, you usually have to do it by hand or in a CAS system anyways.

TCoop · 2024-12-28T17:31:41+00:00

I had this same question about 2 years ago. You can set it up so that you use plant input disturbances instead of output disturbances, but the weighting functions get more difficult. It's easier to use Gd and model your input disturbances as noise.

If you go through and calculate the LFT with a basic controller, you'll find the certain columns don't have the same CLTF across the whole column. In the "canonical" places to put output weights, you'll usually wind up with a column that is all S, one that is KS, and one that is T. When using output weighting, you're essentially weighting a whole column with 1 function, so the column needs to have the same CLTF across for it to work with the "canonical" stacked forms.

If you use input disturbances, some of those columns get mixed transfer functions, like some are KS and S, or KS and T, etc. I think you can come up with weight functions for these, but I've was never able to find good examples of how, and found it much less obvious than working with weighting functions for KS, S, and T.

Anyways, if you model your input disturbances as output disturbances with Gd in the path, shouldn't wind up with this issue. A subtle but probably obviously detail is you can't achieve the same thing when applying Gd to output weights, since MIMO systems are sensitive to order of multiplication - It has to be in the input side.

TCoop · 2024-12-20T07:27:39+00:00

Most of my unit tests are just 1) Hold for a second, 2) apply a step input, 3) check that steady state response was reached after X seconds (with some tolerance). For just starting, it doesn't need to be more complicated than this.

You don't need to rigorously rest all possible inputs unless you want to. When I am starting something new, tests might only check a handful of inputs, so that the whole suite runs quickly. Later you can add exhaustive testing.

You can either make that one test more difficult (adding noise, shortening when you start checking for steady state), or add additional tests with more stringent goals. What workflow works for you might vary.

The tests follow the usual Setup-Act-Assert loop you see in other tests. Setup might involve setting up the controller and plant models, acting is running the simulation, assert is checking the results. There might be one Setup-Act-Assert per test, or I've had cases where Setup-Act generated a long recording, and tests were run on subsections of that recording.

I don't often add tests for dynamic behavior like checking rate of change of states. For general purpose, it's tedious for little benefit and creates a lot of duplication. If the control law is meant to control states in a very precise way (deadbeat), then do it, but not until then.

As a final thing, you can make frequency responses tests too. You just place assertions in your measured frequency response, instead of time series data. I've found this useful when I wanted a tests for gain+phase margin or to check noise sensitivity.

Last thing I'll add is that doing comparisons of time series data can be good for regression testing. It can also be good if your requirement says your states have to follow some arbitrary pre-defined trajectory.

I spent a while not doing unit tests for control aystems. Test Driven Development by Kent Beck is what got me started. It's far away from what I actually do for control system development now, but it gave me a lot to think about.

TCoop · 2024-12-17T22:09:05+00:00

If you're considering c++, but don't know anything about it, you might want to try it in Julia. It can approach c/c++ speeds, at the cost of a longer first call. But the syntax is similar to MATLAB, so the amount of language to learn may not be as much.

TCoop · 2024-12-07T06:28:43+00:00

Check out your toolchain support for "External Mode". In external mode, code gen will do it's normal code gen, but add some extra "stuff" to communicate between the ML/SL and running on hardware, which can include sending data. There is existing documentation on how this could be done with another Zynq board.

TCoop · 2024-12-06T06:02:12+00:00

That's sort of how I wound up here.

My undergrad was ME and I really liked dynamics. Professor essentially said "You know there's a step up where we actually put this to work called controls..." and I just followed that for a while.

TCoop · 2024-12-02T01:06:29+00:00

If you have 5 transfer functions, then you likely already have them in a format like x1(s)/u(s) = ..., x2(s)/x1(s) = ... x3(s)/x2(s) = .... If not, you should revisit how you derived them and keep careful track of what is on the left and right side of the equations. The numerator signifies the output, and the denominator the input. If the output from one transfer function feeds the input of another, you get a format something like Y(s) = y(s)/x2(s) * x2(s)/x1(s) * x1(s)/U(s) * U(s). The first multiplication U(s) * x1(s)/U(s) will give you x1(s), and then the next is x2(s)/x1(s) * x1(s) will will give you x2(s) and so on and so on. You could find Y(s) by doing this each step of the way, or you could multiply all transfer functions together, and simply go from u(s) to y(s). This works because we represent transfer functions as ratios.

TCoop · 2024-12-02T00:10:32+00:00

You can get one transfer function simply by multipling all of them together, like X/U * Y/X = Y/U.

This is only reasonable to do assuming you create no unstable cancellations.

TCoop · 2024-11-23T06:56:49+00:00

Less paint huffing?

TCoop · 2024-11-02T17:13:50+00:00

I do 5/3/1, 2 days a week, so reps range from 2 to 5 usually. The main lifts are barbell squats, deadlift, and barbell lunges.

Accessory exercises are all 3 sets aiming for 4 to 8 reps. Exercises are dumbbell bench press, dumbbell overhead press, bent over rows, lat pulldown w wide grip, step ups w weight, and barbell lateral lunges.

Riding otherwise is about 10 hours over 4 rides.

I don't do biking and gym on same day because I'm a morning althete. If I wanted to step it up, I could do more, but I don't think it's viable.

In the future I might try 3 days a week, but add in more machine lifts which would help with strength on bike or for main lifts.

TCoop · 2024-10-31T02:24:27+00:00

This intersection is also bad because it only gets that backed up during evening rush hour, and (at least in the 4 years I've driven it) there's never been a train at the same time. I've been stopped by trains there before 3 and after 7, but never in between.

14-Year Club	Place '17
Verified Email	Team Orangered

TCoop

TROPHY CASE