Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

Fix for PID component to accept symbolic parameters #231

Open
wants to merge 3 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Fix for PID component to accept symbolic parameters #231

wants to merge 3 commits into from

Conversation

bradcarman
Copy link
Contributor

fixes #203

@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Oct 4, 2023 •
edited
Loading

Codecov Report

Merging #231 (1aaef71) into main (0fbd414) will decrease coverage by 0.20%.
The diff coverage is 60.86%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #231      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   55.31%   55.12%   -0.20%     
==========================================
  Files          48       48              
  Lines        1609     1620      +11     
==========================================
+ Hits          890      893       +3     
- Misses        719      727       +8
Files Coverage Δ
src/Blocks/Blocks.jl 100.00% <ø> (ø)
src/Blocks/continuous.jl 86.11% <60.86%> (-4.87%) ⬇️

📣 We’re building smart automated test selection to slash your CI/CD build times. Learn more

baggepinnen
baggepinnen reviewed Oct 4, 2023
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Contributor

@baggepinnen baggepinnen left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks for fixing with the parameters :)

I'm not sure if I like the new syntax though

@named pid_controller = PID("PI"; k = 3, Ti)

If you want a PI controller, why don't you call PI instead of PID? Using strings as arguments to select options is rather uncommon in Julia.

This is also a breaking change since you have changed the method to turn I and D off from passing false for their respective parameters to passing with_I etc., and I am strictly against breaking changes unless they are extremely well motivated and accompanied by a major version bump (which itself is associated with a large amount of extra work for everyone).

@bradcarman
Copy link
Contributor Author

I see this has unfortunately breaking changes. However, this is something that needs to get fixed. Currently it's not possible to build a controller system that owns the parameters that are fed to the PID since currently the inputs for Ti and Td need to be strictly numeric values and not @parameters. I'm not a fan of the proposed interface, but it's the best I could come up with since we are forced to separate with_I and with_D from the actual inputs of Ti and Td. I wish there was a better way, maybe a new ModelingToolkit.jl feature could allow for the original interface.

@baggepinnen
Copy link
Contributor

Maybe we could avoid breaking the interface by

  1. Letting PID work exactly the same if the provided parameters are numeric
  2. Have a separate PD component to handle the case where there is no integrator. We already have PI.
  3. Let PID always be PID if parameters are symbolic.

That way we would never need any structural parameters, since the structure is determined by the user selecting the appropriate component out of PI, PD, PID.

Would this solve your problem?

@bradcarman
Copy link
Contributor Author

Yeah, I think this is the right way to go.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@baggepinnen baggepinnen baggepinnen left review comments

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

PID in Blocks not able to accept symbolic parameters
2 participants
@bradcarman @baggepinnen