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.

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

Fix MOA with local solvers not supporting delete #46

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Feb 21, 2023
Merged

Conversation

odow
Copy link
Member

@odow odow commented Feb 21, 2023

Closes #44

This also fixes a bunch of cases which assume MOI.OPTIMAL is the only status that may be returned.

@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Feb 21, 2023

Codecov Report

Base: 95.89% // Head: 95.81% // Decreases project coverage by -0.09% ⚠️

Coverage data is based on head (541f40d) compared to base (7cc03e0).
Patch coverage: 93.33% of modified lines in pull request are covered.

Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master      #46      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   95.89%   95.81%   -0.09%     
==========================================
  Files           8        8              
  Lines         731      740       +9     
==========================================
+ Hits          701      709       +8     
- Misses         30       31       +1     
Impacted Files Coverage Δ
src/algorithms/Dichotomy.jl 98.03% <ø> (-0.04%) ⬇️
src/MultiObjectiveAlgorithms.jl 90.59% <90.90%> (-0.04%) ⬇️
src/algorithms/DominguezRios.jl 100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
src/algorithms/EpsilonConstraint.jl 96.66% <100.00%> (ø)
src/algorithms/KirlikSayin.jl 98.21% <100.00%> (ø)

Help us with your feedback. Take ten seconds to tell us how you rate us. Have a feature suggestion? Share it here.

☔ View full report at Codecov.
📢 Do you have feedback about the report comment? Let us know in this issue.

@odow odow merged commit d23472a into master Feb 21, 2023
@odow odow deleted the od/fix-ipopt branch February 21, 2023 19:43
odow added a commit to jump-dev/MathOptInterface.jl that referenced this pull request Feb 22, 2023
This is useful when creating optimizers which do not support the
incremental interface, or which only partially implement it.

This change is motivated by some recent examples in which it was
necessary for the user to hard-code the caching logic to work-around
the lack of deletion in a solver, and the caching logic is confusing
to even advanced users. See:

 * https://discourse.julialang.org/t/jump-scip-error/93958
 * jump-dev/MultiObjectiveAlgorithms.jl#46
odow added a commit to jump-dev/MathOptInterface.jl that referenced this pull request Feb 24, 2023
This is useful when creating optimizers which do not support the
incremental interface, or which only partially implement it.

This change is motivated by some recent examples in which it was
necessary for the user to hard-code the caching logic to work-around
the lack of deletion in a solver, and the caching logic is confusing
to even advanced users. See:

 * https://discourse.julialang.org/t/jump-scip-error/93958
 * jump-dev/MultiObjectiveAlgorithms.jl#46
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Some solvers don't support delete
1 participant