Month: June 2020

The next generation of Model-Based Design

Published on by Michael BurkeLeave a comment

I predict that in just one year the state of Model-Based Design could (1) see a jump equivalent to 7 years of normal progress; COVID-19 has brought to the forefront a needed set of transformations that will reshape the processes and infrastructure that define Model-Based Design. It gives us an opportunity to realize a new vision both for these times and beyond.

In a painting, every brush stroke(2) matters; but it is only in the collection of the strokes that the full image is revealed. Fortunately, in the software development process, you do not need all of the “strokes” to see the full picture; each improvement stroke provides a return on investment. By intelligently clustering the strokes together you see a multiplicative effect.

The objective of this new series of blogs is to provide the strokes and to define the clusters so the order of adoption can be optimized.

The obvious change due to COVID-19 is working remotely; this change exposes multiple areas where Model-Based Design should be improved. Cultural needs feed into process changes, which then mandate enhanced automation; these are the “strokes” that we will look at.

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is cluster.png
Example grouping of CPA into Clusters

The clusters

I want to introduce a few of the clusters I have already identified as “ready” for transformation. As this blog continues, this list will be expanded and refined. For now…

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is 1200px-Cluster-2.svg_.png

The review process

Current review process depend on two things, informal communication before the actual review and the highly interactive nature of in person reviews; both of these suffer in the remote working environment. To create a better review process there are several “strokes” that are needed. Changes in Architectural style to make review easier, up-front communication through the use of ICDs, and automation to validate prior to the meeting.

Creation and validation of physical models

At first glance, the creation of physical models should not be impacted by COVID-19. If we are building our models from first principles then those principles are the same if we are in the same room or not (3). However, in practice, first principle models are not practical and simplifying assumptions need to be made, which in turn means that the model needs to be validated against real world data(4). How do you collect that data when you need to social distance? How do you validate it?

Requirements life cycle

The requirements life cycle will perhaps see the most important changes. Requirements act as the primary source of truth in the development process; as a result, having a robust, understandable requirements life cycle is critical. We will need to see improvements in the way requirements are written, tested and maintained.

The testing life cycle

Testing should be like breathing, something you do automatically to keep you alive (5). The testing life cycle is impacted by COVID in a number of ways, first there is the stress on testing infrastructure (tests need to be move to continuous integration (CI) systems). Next, there is an impact on the development of tests when the developer and the test engineer don’t sit next to each other,(6) there is less informal communication that provides bullet resistant (7) tests.

The release process

The smallest mistake early in your development process can have a butterfly effect (8) on the downstream process. The use of automation at all stages of the release process will need to change to prevent the small flaps early on leading to large problems down stream. If we follow the automation upstream we will see that there need to be cultural changes that support people in the use of automation.

The strokes

The strokes are updates to classical Model-Based Design topics; areas where the existing shortfalls are exposed by the current working conditions.

  • Cultural
    • Improving formal documentation
    • Enhancing and simplifying informal communication
    • Meeting your meeting responsibilities
    • Welcome aboard, on-boarding at a distance
    • …
  • Process & “Style”
    • Workflows
      • One of these things is not like the others: Version controls
      • What I’m expecting: writing requirements
      • Follow the leader, improving the traceability process
      • Get your MBD license: Certification time!
      • …
    • Architectural changes
      • Mega fauna models : “Right sizing” your models
      • Come together, right now: model integration
      • They have a word for that in… Selecting the correct modeling language
      • Multi-generation code development: integrating legacy code
      • Put on your model reorg boots!
      • Baskin Robbins 31 flavors of models
      • …
    • Development changes
      • Workout routine for physical models
      • How do you know what you know? Validation methodologies
      • Polymorphic functionality
      • I think I’ve written this before! Revisiting reuse
    • Testing changes
      • A shock to your testing cylce
      • Send in the robots: test automation
      • The ABCs of testing interfaces
      • No bubbles: standardized testing
      • …
  • Automation
    • Look at this cool thing I wrote: when and how to automate
    • Compound interest: return on investment for automation
    • The ice cream problem: bullet proof automation
    • …

I will be posting blogs on these topics about once per week.

Footnotes

  1. I write “could” because all changes are dependent on taking action; now is the time to start.
  2. I have often wondered to what degree the Pointillism school of art influenced early computer graphics which were sprite based; I also have wondered if the term “sprite” is in part, due to the number of early fantasy computer games that included sprites.
  3. I tried for a long time to think of a “Spooky action at a distance” joke that would fit in here but wasn’t able to. Perhaps you could say after working as part of a team for long enough you know how everyone thinks, so you are “developing at a distance.”
  4. Even when you don’t need to simplify the model, real world validation is often recommended for complex systems.
  5. We could push this analogy pretty far; under stress you breathe/test more heavily. If you train your systems you can run much harder before you are out of breath
  6. In the best cases, organizations have separate development and testing roles. When they are combined into one, developer is the test; you are sitting next to yourself and sitting alone which can lead to developer bias in the creation of tests.
  7. I write “bullet resistant” not “bullet proof” in recognition that to get to “bullet proof” is part of the process of validating your tests (see this on developing testing)
  8. The more common use of the butterfly effect relates to chaos theory, e.g. a butterfly flaps its wings and triggers a tornado. However when I first learned of this it came from a Ray Bradbury story, the Sound of Thunder.

Don’t ISO-late

Published on by Michael BurkeLeave a comment

When it comes to safety standards, such as the ISO-26262, the old adage “better late than never” can be both dangerous (1) and costly. The simplest, somewhat humorous, description of a safety critical standard that I have read is the following

  • Say what you are going to do
  • Do what you said you would do
  • Verify that what you did matches what you said
  • Generate reports

While it is fictitious in its simplicity, it gets to the heart of the matter. Safety critical processes are about being able to show that each step along the development path you both plan out what you intend to do and verify that what you did matches your intentions (plan, do, show).

If that is all

You have to do, how hard can it be? Well first, let’s talk about what it takes to “show” that you did what you said. First you need to be able to show traceability between all artifacts. This means you need a robust tool that will show the link between

  • Requirements to the model
  • Requirements to tests
  • Test results to the model
  • Test results to the requirements
  • The model to the generated code
  • Integration tests to requirements
  • And between all the other components

Furthermore those links need to take into account the version control for all the units under test. Setting up the “hooks”(2) for all of these components is a task that needs to be done at the start of the project. There is a reason for the old joke about airplane development: “For every pound of plan you have 20 pounds of paper”(3)

Just like in the movie, being a “tracer” is not an easy job

Now that you have your “outline” what now(4)

Tracing the steps is just the “first” step; next, you need to validate the behavior of every tool (including your tracing tools) along the way. There are 5 basic steps for validating a software tool

  1. Create a validation plan: Define what it is you will be testing, under what conditions, what is the environment, who will perform the validation…
  2. Define system requirements: The creation of a system requirements (SRS) document breaks down into two parts; infrastructural and functional. During this time a system risk analysis document is created along with mitigation strategies.
  3. Create a validation protocol and test specs: Definition of both test plan (how you will test) as well as the specific test cases. The creation of a traceability(3) matrix between the plan and the test plan is created.
  4. Perform the testing: Execution of the tests defined in step 3
  5. Review and update: Collect the results of step 4, for any issues that failed the validation plan, determine if the fall under the mitigation strategies or if the plan / tool needs to be updated.

Getting your ducks in a row

Assuming you get all your ducks in a row (6) what next? The next step is to roll out how you will use those tools to your end users. Part of the software validation process is specifying how the tool is used; this can take the form of modeling guidelines (MAAB Style guide), defined test frame works or other workflow tools.

The only time is NOW

As these tasks start mounting up you can see why the “better late than never” will not work for a safety critical workflow; by the time “late” comes along, you have already been developing algorithms without the guidelines, creating artifacts without traceability and using tools that may, or may not, be certifiable.

There is, of course, good news. Processes learned in one project can be reused (as can verification artifacts) so much of what you a face is a one time upfront cost. If this is your company’s first time, you can also leverage industry best practices such as the IEC Certification Kit.

Footnotes

  1. People often talk about things being dangerous that are not, in fact, dangerous. However when it comes to safety standards, the failure to start early can result in critical mistakes entering into the project which can lead to injury and even death.
  2. Hooks is a term used to describe the infrastructure to connect different components together.
  3. A joke about “paper airplanes” would make sense about now.
  4. Since an “outline” is a “tracing”
  5. The longer you work in the safety critical world, the more often you will hear the term “safety critical”
  6. And for a software development project there will be multiple “ducks” to validate from Test vector generators, code generators, compilers, test harness builders….

Why choose Model-Based Design?

Published on by Michael BurkeLeave a comment

Over the last 18 years, I’ve had a variation on this conversation on every project I have worked on. (Dramatized for a blog audience)

  • Talented Engineer (TE): This model based stuff is interesting and all, but I can write the same code in 1/2 the time and it is 10% more efficient.
  • Me (also a talented engineer): That is probably true, you write very good code. Do you enjoy writing code?

  • TE: Well no, I write code because that is what I need to do to implement my algorithm. But wait, you are admitting my code is better?
  • ME: Yes, yours is. How many other people in your group are as proficient in C? And if you don’t enjoy writing code, do you enjoy designing <MAGICAL SPACE WIDGETS>(1)?
  • TE: I Went to school so I could work on MSWs(2), I love working at MSW Co on them; and really, maybe one out of the 20 can program as well as I do.
  • ME: Ok, well, how much time do you spend coding versus designing? Debugging versus testing?
  • TE: Tell me more about MBD stuff…

Realizing the benefit

The definition of Model-Based Design that I use is simple:

The use of a model(3) that is the single source of truth to 
execute two or more tasks in the design cycle

I work for The MathWorks, but, for a minute I will be agnostic. The definition simply says “a model.” The “model” can be a physical prototype, an analog computer, C code or, I hope, a Simulink or Simscape model. The important part is that the same model, without changes (4), is used at multiple points in the design cycle.

By my estimate I have drawn the V diagrams 1.3e5 times.(5)

If we think back to our TE in the opening section, what did they want to do? They wanted to design MSWs. They did not want to spend time creating test harness, writing test vectors, generating reports, and integrating with hardware. And why should they? TE was hired because he studied MSW and knows how to design the best MSWs; why take him away from that task? Since MBD allows users to use the same model at multiple points means that when our TE in design is done he can hand it off to another TE in the testing group who when they finish it can hand it off to a TE in integration who hands it off to a TE in release engineering. And why is this possible? Because it is much easier to find talented engineers who cover a given area very well (e.g. just test, or just release) than it is to find the magical unicorn(6) who can do all of the tasks well.

But wait! I can do all that in X

At some point down the line our TE comes back and says

  • TE: wait, just two paragraphs ago you said a Model could be C code, why should I use this graphical language?
  • ME: Wait! I just wrote that, so how did you see that? But OK, depending on your application, you may use Simulink, Stateflow or the MATLAB (textual) environment. The key is the infrastructure built up around the environment that enables the “more than one uses of the model.”

Can and should are two different beasts(7). Modern graphical modeling languages have supporting tools directly integrated into their environment. The set-up and integration is reasonably straightforward. Textual language, by their open nature, often have higher set-up and integration costs.

Making the transition / learning your way around

At first the transition to a graphical development environment (8) can seem daunting; Simulink’s base pallet has over 200 blocks(9), and knowing at first which one is the correct one to use can be confusing. However, like learning any other language you will quickly pick up the basics once you throw yourself in. Unlike learning a new programming language there are multiple transformation technologies you can apply directly to the model. When you start adopting Model-Based Design you should determine what “second task to execute” you want to adopt first. For more insights on this I would recommend viewing this roadmap.

Putting it all together

Ultimately the adoption of model based design isn’t about the tools, it is about the process. How you use each tool at each step along the way to the best effect. I welcome you to continue to join me in this space as upcoming blog posts delve more into Model-Based Design processes.

Ah the splash page image!

Model-Based Design for the VP/CTO

In past blogs I have written and talked about the Return On Investment (ROI) for adopting Model-Based Design. This link, from The MathWorks, provides another good overview on the ROI question. I want to propose another reason for this migration / adoption. Finding an engineer / scientist who knows how to develop “magical space widgets” takes time; on-boarding them them takes time. Losing them happens from frustration and boredom. This is one of the “hidden” drivers of ROI for MBD; when your people spend most of their time working on the things that interest them in ways that use their abilities and knowledge you have highly engaged employees which leads to greater innovation and higher quality.

Footnotes

  1. MAGICAL SPACE WIDGETS is a generic term for a customer project. Sometimes it is a car or a plane, or sometimes an actual spacecraft.
  2. MSW Is the agreed upon TLA for Magical Space Widgets.
  3. In the actual MBD workflow it will be multiple models, but let’s start simply
  4. Without changes is a simplification. The model you start off with at the start of the design cycle will be elaborated as it is developed. The important point is that if you took that elaborated model back to the earlier stages of the process it should still function in that stage (at a higher level)
  5. The version that I like best of the V diagram reflects the iterative nature of design, that within each stage there are iterations moving forward and back. Much like a PID controller, a good process is self correcting to errors in the process.
  6. Magical unicorns do exist, just don’t count on your process depending on them.
  7. Or in the image’s case, T-Rex
  8. OK, I’m not trying to be subtle here; once you start seeing them as development environments where you don’t throw away your work at each step along the way, the benefits become clear.
  9. Honestly I’m not sure how to count the number of “basic” functions in a textual language like C; while those 200+ blocks at first may seem like a lot, but once you realize they are targeted at the design of models you quickly pick them up.

This is “only” a test

Published on by Michael BurkeLeave a comment

In the last blog I introduced the best practices for designing scenario based tests. Today I am going to cover the, non Herculean(1), task of generating test vectors.

Good vector definitions have resolution down to the smallest time step

The “giddy” set-UP

Starting off happily let’s consider 3 things; the unit under test, the test harness and the analysis method.

  • Unit Under Test (UUT): The UUT is what you are testing. For the test to be valid, the unit must be fully encapsulated by the test harness. E.g. all inputs and outputs to the UUT come through the test harness.(2)
  • The test harness: (3)Provides the interface to the UUT, providing the inputs reading/logging the outputs. Test harnesses can be black, white or grey box. Test harnesses can be dynamic or static.(4)
  • Analysis method: Dynamic or static; how the results of the test execution are evaluated.

Not to put the cart before the horse but; we start with a test scenario. We need the test vectors. To have test vectors, we need a test harness. To have a test harness we need a well defined interface.(5)

Within the software testing domain (which includes MBD) a well defined interface means the following:

  • All the inputs and outputs of the system are known: Normally this is through a function interface (in C) or the root level inputs / outputs in a model
  • Type and timing are known: The execution rate (or trigger) for the UUT is known as are all of the data types and dimensions of the I/O.

Time to saddle up!

No more horsing around, once you have your interface designed, it is time to create your test harness. Given that we are working in the domain of Model-Based Design, the ideal objective is to automatically generate a test harness. (To all the neigh sayers out there)

A well defined interface!

Signal time!

There are four basic methods for creating signals

  • Manually: Ah…good old fashioned hand crafted test vectors. These take the most time but is where we normally start.
  • Automatically (general constraint): The next step up is to create test vectors using an auto generation tool. These tools generally allow for basic “types of tests” to be specified such as range, dead code, MCDC.
  • Automatically (constraints specified): The final approach is to use a test vector generation tool and apply constraints to the test vectors.
  • From device: Perhaps this is cheating, but a good percentage of input test vectors come from real world test data. They have all the pros and cons(6); noise and random data; they may not get what you are looking for but…

UUT and constraints

In this example we have the UUT and a “Test Assessment Block” as our method for imposing constraints. What we program into the Assessment Block is what we want to happen, not what we are checking against(7). For example, we could specify the input vectors for the WheelSpeed, WheelTqCmd and SlipRationDetected are at a given value and that the output vector is ABS_PWM . The automatic test vector generation would then create a set of tests that met that condition. You could then check for the cases where the ABS_Fault should be active.

COVID-19 Acceleration: issues with “from the device”

When you social distance from your co-workers you are, more often then not, social distancing from your physical hardware. This directly impacts the ability to gather “real world” test data. My prediction is that we will see 4 trends as a result.

  1. Greater use of existing real world data / public domain data sets: Lets be honest, there are times that data is gathered because it is easy to do so; go to the lab run the widget, collect the data and go. However there is, no doubt within your company and within government, and university data bases a wealth of existing data that will match what you need down to the 90% level
  2. Increased automation of test data collection: To some extent being in a lab or in a vehicle will always be required for collecting data, however many of the processes around setup, data collection and data transmission can be automated to reduce both the time on site and the frequency of the time on site.
  3. Improved physical models: I know what you are thinking, this is about collecting real world data! What sort of trick is this(8)! What I am suggesting is that collection of physical data will be prioritized for the creation of better physical models to reduce the net time in lab.
  4. In use collection: The next step will be the transmission of data from existing objects in the field back to the manufacture. The model “IC-2021” freezer in the field will, most likely, share 95% of the same hardware and software. This means you have a lab in the field.
The Lambert projection for more projects see

All of these methods will be used going forward to supplement traditional real-world data collection methods. With the physical modeling approach I am going to dive into how to select data to collect to rapidly improve the models. With the “in the field” we will look take our first look at big data methods.

Final thoughts

Test vectors are just one part of the overall testing infrastructure; the necessary starting point. We are going to keep looking at all the points along the Verification and Validation process; both in depth and at the impact that COVID conditions continue to have.

Footnotes

  1. With the use of one last Greek hero of antiquity, I hope to build a metaphor for the 12 labors of Hercules as applied to testing (with far fewer labors)
  2. We will look at how large the UUT should be in another blog post. For now, we will give the ballpark that a UUT should be linked to 5 ~ 8 related requirements. Each requirement will have multiple tests associated with it.
  3. A good test harness should be like the harness for a horse, e.g. provides a secure connection to the horse (software) enabling it to run fully, have the minimum number of attachment points (e.g. don’t overload with test points) and connect without chaffing (crashing or changing the behavior of the code).
  4. A dynamic test harness has the test validation software as part of the test harness, e.g. the UUT is evaluated as the test is run. A static test harness simply logs the data for post processing.
  5. Step 1 is to swallow a fly, today you will learn why!
  6. Noise is, and is not a problem. Since it will exist in the real world you should welcome noise into your test cases since that is what you will find once you deploy your product once and for all.
  7. As an example of what we want to happen, we may want to get an dessert (objective) but do not want one with coconut flavor (test).
  8. Not a very good trick, and 8! is 40,320.

Your Thread in the Labyrinth

Published on by Michael BurkeLeave a comment

I come to you now with white sails unfurled. For the last two years I have walked the twists and turns of the Model-Based Design labyrinth, working in depth with a single customer. All the while marking the walls with chalk and unfurling my ball of twine so that having slayed the minotaur of process(1) I could return to recount my deeds(2).

Two thirds of my way into the maze a shift occurred, one that happened for all of us; the onset of the COVID-19 virus. Like an earthquake, the effects of the virus had an impact on the “shape” of the maze. Some passages had small changes, some massive deadfalls. Being deep in the heart of the maze when it happened has given me insights into how Model-Based Design has, and needs, to shift in response. (Changes which I have found to be both of use now and of long term benefit to the development cycle)

To sail beyond the sunset

Two years ago when I set out on this odyssey(3), I had laid out a sea chart to guide people through the boundary waters of Model-Based Design. These two years have given me a chance to see both the Kraken and the Treasure in the depths of that sea. Two years ago I wrote an introductory post on scenario based testing; in which I laid out the rationale for the testing and a basic methodology for developing these tests; let us get go deeper.

The adventure starts now: the scenario

A scenario based test(5) should be described in two parts

  1. What happens: (description) e.g. what are the steps that take you from point A to point B.
  2. What cannot happen: (prescribed) As you go from point A to point B what if C happens then your test fails.

A,B,C, simple as 1,2,3 right? Well yes, if it ever was just A,B and not C.

The high C’s

Lets continue thinking about a state machine where our objective is to get from State A to B. For many years I my observation has been that the average number of state transitions to get between to “states of interest” ranges between 6 to 8. If each state visited along the way has 2 exit points and if there are multiple ways to get from A to B then the total number of described transitions is on the order of 6 to 8 and each transition can have multiple required conditions.

The seven deadly sins(6,8)

Ok, not really 7 but…

  1. What is proscribed can change: The allowed behavior or event often changes between your current states(7). Often the proscribed value of a variable in your starting state is what you need to make a later transition.
    • The mistake: Setting a test to monitor “if variable X = 1” you fail
      • Recommendation: Evaluate the scope of each proscribed behavior and assign to only the active state. (Note this has the side benefit of faster running tests!)
  2. Synchronicity of event: A common conditional logic that you will encounter is “(input1 == 1) && (input2==0)”. On the surface this seems reasonable; but what if input 1 and input 2 are discreet events and only occur for one time step?
    • The mistake: The test is written in such a way that you have input1 and input2 hitting the correct value at the same time, but often in the “real world” there is some “jitter” in the signals.
      • Recommendation: If you have signal that have “jitter” consider having a temporary buffer variable that hold the value for a set number of cycles.
    • Note from the “labyrinth”: these sort of “bugs” take a long time to track down since the “test” passed but the actual device failed.
      • Recommendation: For all event based inputs add a notation to the Interface Control Document (ICD). This should be used as part of the test structure to determine if you have accounted for jitter.
  3. Not an exact match: For floating point numbers the scenario detection needs to use “fuzzy logic”. E.g. if the scenario calls for the vehicle to accelerate to 88 kph then the test should be read “when VehSpeed >= 88 && VehSpeed <= 88 + delta”. E.g. give some “wiggle room” in the event.
    1. The mistake: This is a common violation, so much so that we have MISRA 13.3 to cover it.
      • Recommendations: write “check checkers” to check your checks to validate they are valid(9)
    2. Notes from the “Labyrinth”: Surprising to me this error has been more common in test infrastructure than in the units under test. From what I have seen this is a function of not running the same analysis tests on the test code as on the production code. Remember, it dose not matter where the bug comes in)
  4. Not all routes are the same: This is an issue of under specified use cases; in the one case we can think of the difference of getting from the ground floor to the top floor of a 10 story building; option 1 take the stairs, option 2 take an elevator; both gets you there but one is better for your heart.
    • The mistake: When there are multiple routes a “shake up” of the multiple route can occur where parts of one route are melded onto another
      • Recommendation: For multi-route systems create one test case for each route.
    • Notes from the “Labyrinth”: The existence of multiple routes is, often, not taken into account in the design specification. The multiple routes are found when analysis tools (Such as Simulink Design Verifier) are used.

Next Steps

Having covered the specification portion of the test case in the next blog post we will cover the best practices for generating the test vectors while reducing the human input. In this section we will cover how to do this and why they are different when working in the post COVID-19 world.

Footnotes

  1. It is the minotaur of process since process is about the journey between two, or more, states. Having successfully navigate the maze once future trips through are no longer mysteries.
  2. In reality I will be recounting both the deeds of my own work and the many wonderful people I have been working with over the past 2 years.
  3. If learning about Model-Based Design can be thought of as a hero’s journey then let me be your wise elderly mentor(4)
  4. Except, please, I don’t want to be the mentor who is killed off in the 4th act
  5. Scenario based tests can be derived from use cases.
  6. Branching out from Greek myths to medieval concepts.
  7. Living in California now I think complaining about the weather should be proscribe behavior. Even after two years we can’t get over how wonderful it is year round.
  8. Ok, to many bullet points may be one of the “new” deadly sins
  9. When I worked on the original version of the Model Advisor for The MathWorks we had more discussion about “what is a check (guideline) versus check (test function)” then I can possibly remember.