Skip to content

Only require MultiObjectiveSettings if needed#857

Merged
volkm merged 2 commits intostormchecker:masterfrom
volkm:multiobjective_settings
Feb 9, 2026
Merged

Only require MultiObjectiveSettings if needed#857
volkm merged 2 commits intostormchecker:masterfrom
volkm:multiobjective_settings

Conversation

@volkm
Copy link
Contributor

@volkm volkm commented Jan 28, 2026

Running storm-pars lead to an error Cannot retrieve unknown module 'multiobjective'.. This is fixed now by only requiring the setting if needed. There might be a more elegant solution though.

Was introduced with #805

@volkm volkm requested a review from tquatmann January 28, 2026 08:46
@sjunges
Copy link
Contributor

sjunges commented Jan 29, 2026

I don't understand how this fixes the problem. Wouldnt the fix be that storm-pars needs to initialize multi-objective settings?

@volkm
Copy link
Contributor Author

volkm commented Jan 30, 2026

Let's call it a workaround ;). The proper fix would indeed be to initialize the multi-objective setting in storm-pars as well. However, this settings module should not be relevant for storm-pars because we cannot do multi-objective queries on parametric models (as far as I know). So adding this could introduce some confusion.

Maybe the best way for now would be to indeed add the setting to storm-pars.
Then long-term, we could try to separate some functionality in model-handling.h which can be used in general (storm, storm-pars, storm-pomdp) and specific functions which are only relevant for some binaries (such as functions for multi-objective, counter-examples, game-based abstraction, etc.)

Copy link
Contributor

@tquatmann tquatmann left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Since #805 both options --io:propsasmulti and --multiobjective:lex could eventually be abolished since we now have first-class support of multi-objective and lexicographic properties in PRISM- and JANI-style specifications.

For now, this PR works fine as a workaround and we don't lose anything by merging it.

@sjunges
Copy link
Contributor

sjunges commented Feb 9, 2026

Given the discusson above, lets merge this but maybe track this in an issue

Co-authored-by: Tim Quatmann <tim.quatmann@cs.rwth-aachen.de>
@volkm volkm merged commit c591ffb into stormchecker:master Feb 9, 2026
57 of 61 checks passed
@volkm volkm deleted the multiobjective_settings branch February 9, 2026 19:36
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants