ExaModels #58
Merged
ExaModels #58
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
* Added ExaModels.jl example * Update project files * added examodels to testing * [hotfix] "ma27" option removed * "typo fix README" --------- Co-authored-by: Oscar Dowson <odow@users.noreply.github.com>
sshin23
reviewed
Jan 27, 2024
examodels.jl
Outdated
Comment on lines
239
to
249
| va_sol = ExaModels.solution(result, va) | ||
| va_dict = Dict("va_$(i)" => va_sol[busdict[i]] for (i,b) in enumerate(data.bus)) | ||
|
|
||
| vm_sol = ExaModels.solution(result, vm) | ||
| vm_dict = Dict("vm_$(i)" => vm_sol[busdict[i]] for (i,b) in enumerate(data.bus)) | ||
|
|
||
| pg_sol = ExaModels.solution(result, pg) | ||
| pg_dict = Dict("pg_$(i)" => pg_sol[gendict[i]] for (i,b) in enumerate(data.gen)) | ||
|
|
||
| qg_sol = ExaModels.solution(result, qg) | ||
| qg_dict = Dict("qg_$(i)" => qg_sol[gendict[i]] for (i,b) in enumerate(data.gen)) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Replacing this part with
va_sol = ExaModels.solution(result, va)
va_dict = Dict("va_$(i)" => va_sol[b.i] for (i,b) in enumerate(data.bus))
vm_sol = ExaModels.solution(result, vm)
vm_dict = Dict("vm_$(i)" => vm_sol[b.i] for (i,b) in enumerate(data.bus))
pg_sol = ExaModels.solution(result, pg)
pg_dict = Dict("pg_$(i)" => pg_sol[b.i] for (i,b) in enumerate(data.gen))
qg_sol = ExaModels.solution(result, qg)
qg_dict = Dict("qg_$(i)" => qg_sol[b.i] for (i,b) in enumerate(data.gen))
seems to resolve the issue
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Confirmed it seems to work on my side. I will apply the fix and text again.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Looking at the CI log, the validation test is going to fail. So the indexing bug was worked around but the solution is no longer in the correct format.
|
Detailed results below. Once the solution encoding issue is resolved, I say we are good to merge. Objective Value Correctness Check
Runtime Check
|
Sure thing. When the modeling layer is this fast the tests also go really fast. 😄 |
sshin23
approved these changes
Jan 27, 2024
|
Thank you very much for the contribution! |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Results of initial testing, there appears to be a subtle indexing bug in how the modeling layer solution data is turned into the dicts that are use for the standard solution format. It happens on more than 50% of the pglib cases here are two examples,
pglib_opf_case179_goc.m->KeyError: key 1 not foundpglib_opf_case200_activ.m->KeyError: key 16 not found@sshin23, can you see if you can reproduce and propose a fix with a PR into this branch?