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

Port of MPB test 1d from linproginterface #53

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Jul 17, 2017
Merged

Port of MPB test 1d from linproginterface #53

merged 3 commits into from
Jul 17, 2017

Conversation

IssamT
Copy link
Contributor

@IssamT IssamT commented Jul 17, 2017

No description provided.

@mlubin
Copy link
Member

mlubin commented Jul 17, 2017

In my mind, it is reasonable for solvers to reject multiple ScalarVariablewiseFunction-GreaterThan constraints applying to the same variable, if it's convenient to do so. I think it would be a lot of unnecessary work to keep track of multiple variable bounds when this is usually not needed. If we agree on this point, then we shouldn't be testing this functionality.

@mlubin
Copy link
Member

mlubin commented Jul 17, 2017

Note that the MPB test used one linear constraint and one variable bound, I think that makes more sense to test.

@IssamT
Copy link
Contributor Author

IssamT commented Jul 17, 2017

I agree with that.

mlubin
mlubin reviewed Jul 17, 2017
View reviewed changes
test/contlinear.jl Outdated
@test MOI.getattribute(m, MOI.NumberOfConstraints{MOI.ScalarAffineFunction{Float64},MOI.GreaterThan{Float64}}()) == 1

objf = MOI.ScalarVariablewiseFunction(x)
MOI.setobjective!(m, MOI.MinSense, objf)
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I also feel that it's unnecessary to test ScalarVariablewiseFunction as an objective function. ScalarAffineFunction is sufficient in terms of expressiveness in the context of LPs.

@mlubin mlubin mentioned this pull request Jul 17, 2017
Closed
@mlubin mlubin merged commit c624c68 into jump-dev:master Jul 17, 2017
@joaquimg joaquimg mentioned this pull request Jul 17, 2017
Closed
51 tasks
odow added a commit that referenced this pull request Sep 23, 2019
@odow
[MPS] fix missing space in bounds (#53)
def089d
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@mlubin mlubin mlubin left review comments

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
2 participants
@IssamT @mlubin