Including formulas for Alpha and Beta #28
Conversation
| @@ -111,8 +111,8 @@ | |||
| vars.Q = -diag(Q); | |||
| vars.R = -diag(R); | |||
| end | |||
| vars.UB = UB; | |||
| vars.LB = LB; | |||
| % vars.UB = UB; | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I wouldn't comment this line. Having it in the vars variable is useful. In your code right now it is not used, but it will probably be used for default values of the bounds. I would add UB and LB back to the vars structure.
| @@ -91,8 +91,8 @@ | |||
| vars.R = -diag(R); | |||
| vars.QRi = -[1./diag(Q); 1./diag(R)]; | |||
| end | |||
| vars.UB = UB; | |||
| vars.LB = LB; | |||
| % vars.UB = UB; | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Same here. Add UB and LB back to vars.
| @@ -116,6 +116,7 @@ | |||
| constCell = add_line(constCell, 'Alpha', vars.Alpha, 1, precision, var_options); | |||
| constCell = add_line(constCell, 'Beta', vars.Beta, 1, precision, var_options); | |||
| end | |||
| constCell = add_line(constCell, 'dummy', 5, 1, precision, var_options); | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I imagine the point of this dummy variable is to have at least one variable in consCell, because if it is empty then its associated flag is never deleted, so you get a compilation-time error.
Is this correct? If it is, then we can leave it for now and I will create an Issue to work on solving this bug (because we want to avoid having a dummy variable in our code....).
| % constCell = add_line(constCell, 'UB0', vars.UB(n+1:end, 1), 1, precision, var_options); | ||
| % constCell = add_line(constCell, 'LB', vars.LB(:, 2:end)', 1, precision, var_options); | ||
| % constCell = add_line(constCell, 'UB', vars.UB(:, 2:end)', 1, precision, var_options); | ||
| % defCell = add_line(defCell, 'VAR_BOUNDS', 1, 1, 'int', 'define'); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Your changes have disabled the option of having different bounds for each prediction step, which was determined before by the VAR_BOUNDS variable. I'll have to include this option back in the future, since it is useful for robust MPC, for example. I will see how it can be done at the same time as letting the user modify the bounds online.
| @@ -19,6 +19,8 @@ void mexFunction(int nlhs, mxArray *plhs[], | |||
| double *Q; | |||
| double *R; | |||
| #endif | |||
| double *LB; // Local LB | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We will want to make these optional inputs, so that the user can call the solver as solver(x, xr, ur);, instead of having to do it as solver(x, xr, ur, [LBx ; LBu], [UBx ; UBu]);. The default values will be taken from the system model passed to the toolbox when generating the solver.
Also, it might be better to change it so that the function is called like solver(x, xr, ur, LBx, UBx, LBu, UBu);, or maybe some structure, i.e., solver(x, xr, ur, constraints);, where constraints is a struct containing the fields LBx, UBx, LBu and UBu.
| @@ -117,8 +117,8 @@ | |||
| else | |||
| vars.T_rho_i = inv(T+rho*eye(n)); | |||
| end | |||
| vars.UB = UB; | |||
| vars.LB = LB; | |||
| % vars.UB = UB; | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Same comment. Put UB and LB back into vars.
| @@ -97,8 +97,8 @@ | |||
| vars.QRi = -[1./diag(Q); 1./diag(R)]; | |||
| end | |||
|
|
|||
| vars.UB = UB; | |||
| vars.LB = LB; | |||
| % vars.UB = UB; | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Same comment. Put UB and LB back into vars.
| } | ||
| #endif | ||
| #if in_engineering == 0 | ||
| for(unsigned int i = 0; i < nn; i++){ | ||
| x0[i] = pointer_x0[i]; | ||
| xr[i] = pointer_xr[i]; | ||
| LB[i] = pointer_LB[i]; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Lines 129-130 can be merged with lines 134-135 into a single for loop. The only reason to have them separate would be if we had LBx, UBx, LBu, UBu as separate inputs in the C function.
No description provided.