To generate a Model Coverage report, select Analysis > Coverage > Settings and specify the desired options on the Coverage > Results pane of the Coverage pane of the Configuration Parameters dialog box. For Stateflow® charts, the Simulink® Verification and Validation™ software records the execution of the chart itself and the execution of states, transition decisions, and individual conditions that compose each decision. After simulation ends, the model coverage reports on how thoroughly a model was tested. The report shows:
How many times each exclusive substate is executed or exited from its parent superstate and entered due to parent superstate history
How many times each transition decision has been evaluated as true or false
How many times each condition has been evaluated as true or false
Note: To measure model coverage data for a Stateflow chart, you must:
To specify coverage recording settings, select Analysis > Coverage > Settings in the Simulink Editor. Then select Enable coverage analysis.
By selecting the Generate report automatically after analysis option in the Coverage > Results pane of the Configuration Parameters dialog box, you can create an HTML report containing the coverage data generated during simulation of the model. The report appears in the MATLAB® Help browser at the end of simulation.
Enabling coverage analysis also enables the selection of different coverages that you can specify for your reports. The following sections address only coverage metrics that affect reports for Stateflow charts. These metrics include decision coverage, condition coverage, and MCDC coverage.
Cyclomatic complexity is a measure of the complexity of a software module based on its edges, nodes, and components within a control-flow chart. It provides an indication of how many times you need to test the module.
The calculation of cyclomatic complexity is as follows:
CC = E - N + p
CC is the cyclomatic complexity,
the number of edges,
N is the number of nodes,
p is the number of components.
Within the Model Coverage tool, each decision is exactly equivalent to a single control flow node, and each decision outcome is equivalent to a control flow edge. Any additional structure in the control-flow chart is ignored since it contributes the same number of nodes as edges and therefore has no effect on the complexity calculation. Therefore, you can express cyclomatic complexity as follows:
CC = OUTCOMES - DECISIONS + p
For analysis purposes, each chart counts as a single component.
Decision coverage interprets a model execution in terms of underlying decisions where behavior or execution must take one outcome from a set of mutually exclusive outcomes.
Note: Full coverage for an object of decision means that every decision has had at least one occurrence of each of its possible outcomes.
Decisions belong to an object making the decision based on its contents or properties. The following table lists the decisions recorded for model coverage for the Stateflow objects owning them. The sections that follow the table describe these decisions and their possible outcomes.
If a chart is a triggered Simulink block, it must decide whether or not to execute its block.
If a chart contains exclusive (OR) substates, it must decide which of its states to execute.
If a state is a superstate containing exclusive (OR) substates, it must decide which substate to execute.
a state has
If a transition is a conditional transition, it must decide whether or not to exit its active source state or junction and enter another state or junction.
If the chart is a triggered block in a Simulink model,
the decision to execute the block is tested. If the block is not triggered,
there is no decision to execute
the block, and the measurement of decision coverage is not applicable
If the chart contains exclusive (OR) substates, the decision
on which substate to execute is tested. If the chart contains only
parallel AND substates, this coverage measurement is not applicable
Since a chart is hierarchically processed from the top down, procedures such as exclusive (OR) substate entry, exit, and execution are sometimes decided by the parenting superstate.
Note: Decision coverage for superstates applies only to exclusive (OR) substates. A superstate makes no decisions for parallel (AND) substates.
Since a superstate must decide which exclusive (OR) substate to process, the number of decision outcomes for the superstate is the number of exclusive (OR) substates that it contains. In the examples that follow, the choice of which substate to process can occur in one of three possible contexts.
Note: Implicit transitions appear as dashed lines in the following examples.
|Context||Example||Decisions That Occur|
Implicit substate exit
A transition takes place whose source is superstate A and whose destination is state B.
|If the superstate has two exclusive (OR) substates, it is the decision of superstate A which substate performs the implicit transition from substate to superstate.|
Substate entry with a history junction
A history junction records which substate was last active before the superstate was exited.
|If that superstate becomes the destination of one or more transitions, the history junction decides which previously active substate to enter.|
For more information, see State Details Report Section.
A state that has an
statement must decide whether to execute that statement based on the
reception of a specified event or on an accumulation of the specified
event when using temporal logic operators.
A conditional transition is a transition with a triggering event and/or a guarding condition. In a conditional transition from one state to another, the decision to exit one state and enter another is credited to the transition itself.
Note: Only conditional transitions receive decision coverage. Transitions without decisions are not applicable to decision coverage.
Note: Full condition coverage means that all possible outcomes occurred for each subcondition in the test of a decision.
For example, for the decision [A & B & C] on a transition, condition coverage reports on the true and false occurrences of each of the subconditions A, B, and C. This results in eight possible outcomes: true and false for each of three subconditions.
For more information, see Transition Details Report Section.
The Modified Condition Decision Coverage (MCDC) option reports a test's coverage of occurrences in which changing an individual subcondition within a transition results in changing the entire transition trigger expression from true to false or false to true.
Note: If matching true and false outcomes occur for each subcondition, coverage is 100%.
For example, if a transition executes on the condition [
& C2 & C3 | C4 & C5], the MCDC report for that
transition shows actual occurrences for each of the five subconditions
C1, C2, C3, C4, C5) in which changing its result
from true to false is able to change the result of the entire condition
from true to false.
If a transition in a Stateflow chart involves a relational operation, it receives relational boundary coverage. For more information, see Relational Boundary Coverage.
You can use the following Simulink Design Verifier™ functions inside Stateflow charts:
If you do not have a Simulink Design Verifier license, you can collect model coverage for a Stateflow chart containing these functions, but you cannot analyze the model using the Simulink Design Verifier software.
When you specify the Objectives and Constraints coverage metric in the Coverage pane of the Configuration Parameters dialog box, the Simulink Verification and Validation software records coverage for these functions.
Each of these functions evaluates an expression
expr is any
valid Boolean MATLAB expression. Simulink Design Verifier coverage
measures the number of time steps that the expression
at least one time step, Simulink Design Verifier coverage for that
function is 100%. Otherwise, the Simulink Verification and Validation software
reports coverage for that function as 0%.
Consider a model that contains this Stateflow chart:
To collect coverage for Simulink Design Verifier functions, on the Coverage pane of the Configuration Parameters dialog box, select Objectives and Constraints.
After simulation, the model coverage report lists coverage for
The following sections of a Model Coverage report were generated
by simulating the
sf_boiler model, which includes
the Bang-Bang Controller chart. The coverage metrics
for MCDC are enabled for this report.
The Summary section shows coverage results for the entire test and appears at the beginning of the Model Coverage report.
Each line in the hierarchy summarizes the coverage results at that level and the levels below it. You can click a hyperlink to a later section in the report with the same assigned hierarchical order number that details that coverage and the coverage of its children.
The top level,
sf_boiler, is the Simulink model
itself. The second level, Bang-Bang Controller, is the Stateflow chart.
The next levels are superstates within the chart, in order of hierarchical
containment. Each superstate uses an SF: prefix. The bottom level,
Boiler Plant model, is an additional subsystem in the model.
When recording coverage for a Stateflow chart, the Simulink Verification and Validation software reports two types of coverage for the chart—Subsystem and Chart.
Subsystem — This section reports coverage for the chart:
Coverage (this object): Coverage data for the chart as a container object
Coverage (inc.) descendants: Coverage data for the chart and the states and transitions in the chart.
If you click the hyperlink of the subsystem name in the section title, the Bang-Bang Controller block is highlighted in the block diagram.
Decision coverage is not applicable (
because this chart does not have an explicit trigger. Condition coverage
and MCDC are not applicable (
NA) for a chart, but
apply to its descendants.
Chart — This section reports coverage for the chart:
Coverage (this object): Coverage data for the chart and its inputs
Coverage (inc.) descendants: Coverage data for the chart and the states and transitions in the chart.
If you click the hyperlink of the chart name in the section title, the chart opens in the Stateflow Editor.
Decision coverage is listed appears for the chart and its descendants.
Condition coverage and MCDC are not applicable (
for a chart, but apply to its descendants.
For each state in a chart, the coverage report includes a State section with details about the coverage recorded for that state.
sf_boiler model, the state
in the box
On is a superstate
A history junction
The coverage report includes a State section
on the state
The decision coverage for the
On state tests
the decision of which substate to execute.
The three decisions are listed in the report:
Under Substate executed,
which substate to execute when
Under Substate exited when
parent exited, which substate is active when
listed as never being active when
because the coverage tool sees the supertransition from
a transition from
Under Previously active
substate entered due to history, which substate to reenter
On re-executes. The history junction records
the previously active substate.
Because each decision can result in either
the total possible outcomes are 3 × 2 = 6.
The results indicate that five of six possible outcomes were tested
Cyclomatic complexity and decision coverage also apply to descendants
On state. The decision required by the condition
the transition from HIGH to NORM brings the total possible decision
outcomes to 8. Condition coverage and MCDC are not applicable (
for a state.
Note: Nodes and edges that make up the cyclomatic complexity calculation have no direct relationship with model objects (states, transitions, and so on). Instead, this calculation requires a graph representation of the equivalent control flow.
Reports for transitions appear under the report sections of their owning objects. Transitions do not appear in the model hierarchy of the Summary section, since the hierarchy is based on superstates that own other Stateflow objects.
The decision for this transition depends on the time delay of
40 seconds and the condition
[cold()]. If, after
a 40 second delay, the environment is cold (
cold() = 1),
the decision to execute this transition and turn the Heater on is
made. For other time intervals or environment conditions, the decision
is made not to execute.
For decision coverage, both true and false outcomes occurred. Because two of two decision outcomes occurred, coverage was full or 100%.
Condition coverage shows that only 4 of 6 condition outcomes
were tested. The temporal logic statement
two conditions: the occurrence of
sec and the time
after(40,sec). Therefore, three conditions
on the transition exist:
cold(). Since each of these decisions can be
true or false, six possible condition outcomes exist.
The Conditions analyzed table shows each condition as a row with the recorded number of occurrences for each outcome (true or false). Decision rows in which a possible outcome did not occur are shaded. For example, the first and the third rows did not record an occurrence of a false outcome.
The condition varies from true to false.
All other conditions contributing to the decision outcome remain constant.
The outcome of the decision varies from true to false, or the reverse.
For three conditions related by an implied AND operator, these criteria can be satisfied by the occurrence of these conditions.
Notice that in each line, the condition tested changes from true to false while the other condition remains constant. Irrelevant contributors are coded with an "x" (discussed below). If both outcomes occur during testing, coverage is complete (100%) for the condition tested.
The preceding report example shows coverage only for condition 2. The false outcomes required for conditions 1 and 3 did not occur, and are indicated by parentheses for both conditions. Therefore, condition rows 1 and 3 are shaded. While condition 2 has been tested, conditions 1 and 3 have not and MCDC is 33%.
For some decisions, the values of
some conditions are irrelevant under certain circumstances. For example,
in the decision [
C1 & C2 & C3 | C4 & C5]
the left side of the
| is false if any
one of the conditions
C3 is false. The same applies to the right side
result if either
false. When searching for matching pairs that change the outcome of
the decision by changing one condition, holding some of the remaining
conditions constant is irrelevant. In these cases, the MC/DC report
marks these conditions with an "x" to indicate their irrelevance as
a contributor to the result. These conditions appear as shown.
Consider the first matched pair. Since condition 1 is true in
the True outcome column, it must
be false in the matching False outcome
column. This makes the conditions
for the false outcome since
C1 & C2 & C3 is
always false if
false. Also, since the false outcome is required to evaluate to false,
the evaluation of
C4 & C5 must also be false.
In this case, a match was found with
C4 = F, making
State transition tables are an alternative way of expressing modal logic in Stateflow. Stateflow charts represent modal logic graphically, and state transition tables can represent equivalent modal logic in tabular form. For more information, see Tabular Expression of Modal Logic in the Stateflow documentation.
Coverage results for state transition tables are the same as
coverage results for equivalent Stateflow charts, except for
a slight difference that arises in coverage of temporal logic. For
example, consider the temporal logic expression
tick) in the Mode Logic chart of the
In chart coverage, the
after(4, tick) transition
represents two conditions: the occurrence of
the time delay
after(4, tick). Since the temporal
tick is never
false, the first condition is not satisfiable, and you cannot record
100% condition and MC/DC coverage for the transition
In state transition table coverage, the
after(4, tick) transition
represents a single decision, with no
subcondition for the occurrence of
only decision coverage is recorded.
For state transition tables containing temporal logic decisions, as in the above example, condition coverage and MC/DC is not recorded.
In a Stateflow chart, an atomic subchart is a graphical object that allows you to reuse the same state or subchart across multiple charts and models.
When you specify to record coverage data for a model during simulation, the Simulink Verification and Validation software records coverage for any atomic subcharts in your model. The coverage data records the execution of the chart itself, and the execution of states, transition decisions, and individual conditions that compose each decision in the atomic subchart.
model and record decision coverage:
This model contains two Sine Wave blocks that supply input signals to the Stateflow chart. Chart contains two atomic subcharts—A and B—that are linked from the same library chart, also named A. The library chart contains the following objects:
In the Simulink Editor, select Analysis > Coverage > Settings
The Coverage pane of the Configuration Parameters dialog box appears.
Select Enable coverage analysis and then select Entire System.
On the Coverage > Results pane, select Generate report automatically after analysis.
Click OK to close the Configuration Parameters dialog box.
When the simulation completes, the coverage report opens.
The report provides coverage data for atomic subcharts A and B in the following forms:
For the atomic subchart instance and its contents.
Decision coverage is not applicable (
this chart does not have an explicit trigger.
For the library chart A and its contents. The chart
itself achieves 100% coverage on the input
and 88% coverage on the states and transitions inside the library
Atomic subchart B is a copy of the same library chart A. The coverage of the contents of subchart B is identical to the coverage of the contents of subchart A.
Simulink Verification and Validation software reports model coverage for the decisions the objects make in a Stateflow chart during model simulation. The report includes coverage for the decisions the truth table functions make.
|For this type of truth table...||The report includes coverage data for...|
Conditions and only those actions that have decision points.
Note: To measure model coverage data for a Stateflow truth table, you must have a Stateflow license. For more information about Stateflow truth tables, see Decision Logic in the Stateflow documentation.
If you have a Stateflow license, you can generate a model coverage report for a truth table.
Consider the following model.
The Stateflow chart contains the following truth table:
When you simulate the model and collect coverage, the model coverage report includes the following data:
The Coverage (this object) column shows
no coverage. The reason is that
the container object for the truth table function—the Stateflow chart—does
not decide whether to execute the
The Coverage (inc. descendants) column shows coverage for the graphical function. The graphical function has the decision logic that makes the transitions for the truth table. The transitions in the graphical function contain the decisions and conditions of the truth table. Coverage for the descendants in the Coverage (inc. descendants) column includes coverage for these conditions and decisions. Function calls to the truth table test the model coverage of these conditions and decisions.
Note: See How Stateflow Generates Content for Truth Tables for a description of the graphical function for a truth table.
Coverage for the decisions and their individual conditions in
ttable truth table function are as follows.
No model coverage for the default decision, D5
All logic that leads to taking a default decision is based on a false outcome for all preceding decisions. This means that the default decision requires no logic, so there is no model coverage.
13% (1/8) decision coverage
The three constants that are inputs to the truth table
each condition can have an outcome value of
3 of the 18 (17%) condition coverage
Three decisions D1, D2,
and D3 have condition coverage, because the set
of inputs (
No (0/9) MCDC coverage
MCDC coverage looks for decision reversals that occur
because one condition outcome changes from
The red letters
The Model Coverage tool displays model coverage results for individual blocks directly in Simulink diagrams. If you enable this feature, the Model Coverage tool:
Highlights Stateflow objects that receive model coverage during simulation
Provides a context-sensitive display of summary model coverage information for each object
Note: The coverage tool changes colors only for open charts at the time coverage information is reported. When you interact with the chart, such as selecting a transition or a state, colors revert to default values.
For details on enabling and selecting this feature in the Simulink window, see Enable Coverage Highlighting in the Simulink Verification and Validation documentation.
Once you enable display coverage with model coloring, anytime that the model generates a model coverage report, individual chart objects receiving coverage appear highlighted with light green or light red.
Select Analysis > Coverage > Settings.
In the Coverage pane of the Configuration Parameters dialog box, select Enable coverage analysis.
In the Coverage > Results pane, select Display coverage results using model coloring.
Simulate the model.
After simulation ends, chart objects with coverage appear highlighted.
Object highlighting indicates coverage as follows:
Light green for full coverage
Light red for partial coverage
No color for zero coverage
Note: To revert the chart to show original colors, select and deselect any objects.
selection_state in the chart.
The following summary report appears.
When you click a highlighted Stateflow object, the summarized coverage for that object appears in the Coverage Display Window. Clicking the hyperlink opens the section of the coverage report for this object.
Tip You can set the Coverage Display Window to appear for a block in response to a hovering mouse cursor instead of a mouse click in one of two ways: