-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 16
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.
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
Update to HiGHS v1.2.0 #81
Conversation
@lgottwald @jajhall looks like there are some segfaults in presolve somewhere: https://github.com/jump-dev/HiGHS.jl/runs/5117936095?check_suite_focus=true
I'll work to exclude the failing tests and then build some reproducible examples. |
Bummer! Good job I've not advertised v1.2.0 directly to users. Rome wasn't built in a day... |
This seems to be the underlying issue: ERGO-Code/HiGHS#717 A lot of JuMP tests (and users) have a work-flow that looks like add variables -> constraints -> more variables -> more constraints. |
Thanks. I'll create a HiGHS unit test for this and get it fixed today. |
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #81 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 82.65% 81.61% -1.04%
==========================================
Files 2 3 +1
Lines 1199 1213 +14
==========================================
- Hits 991 990 -1
- Misses 208 223 +15
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
@jajhall I updated the binaries to ERGO-Code/HiGHS@f73254c and things look great. We're passing all the JuMP tests on Windows, Mac, and Linux, on 64-bit and 32-bit, and we're testing the simplex and IPM solvers with and without presolve. |
How about MIP? |
Yes, all the MIP problems are passing as well |
Actually I found one issue, but it's a compilation problem, not a correctness blocker: ERGO-Code/HiGHS#734 |
Closes #70
Closes #73
Closes #80