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

WIP: A total rewrite #40

Open
wants to merge 19 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from
Open

WIP: A total rewrite #40

wants to merge 19 commits into from

Conversation

joehuchette
Copy link
Contributor

@joehuchette joehuchette commented Mar 12, 2020 •
edited
Loading

Things that will be different:

  • Specify piecewise linear functions in either "V-form" or "H-form" and move between the two
  • Discontinuous function support
  • Arbitrary input/output dimension support
  • More coherent API for specifying formulation (especially for bivariate functions)
  • Comprehensive test set

@joehuchette
Copy link
Contributor Author

Current status: All formulations ported over to new API, with minimal test coverate. Next step is a comprehensive collection of tests (including unit tests of subroutines inside formulations). Still outstanding after that: docs and utilities to move between V- and H-form.

@odow odow mentioned this pull request Sep 11, 2024
Open
trulsf and others added 3 commits January 12, 2025 17:12
@trulsf
Get rewrite up and running (#59)
e385b52 
* Do not track manifest

* Bump dependencies and use HiGHS as test solver

* Correct type in dictionary

* Add field for segment structure and constructors to match old interface

* Specialize piecewiselinear for typical 1D and 2D usage

* Include segment structure in triangle selection

* Update tests to reflect changes, use HiGHS and run all bivariate

* Fix triangulation

* Avoid explicit use of MOI
@trulsf
Merge remote-tracking branch 'remotes/origin/master' into rewrite
a545754
@trulsf
Formatting changes
fdcf5ed
@odow
Copy link
Member

odow commented Jan 12, 2025

Closed by #59?

@trulsf
Copy link
Collaborator

trulsf commented Jan 12, 2025

Closed by #59?

Do you think it is preferable to close this and work on in #59? My plan was initially to continue in this PR and merge recent changes from master and add missing license headers, update the readme, format the code before possibly merging to master.

@odow
Copy link
Member

odow commented Jan 13, 2025

No opinion. Just do what you find easiest

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers
No reviews
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
3 participants
@joehuchette @odow @trulsf