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

Merge stable/1.2 features to master #94

Draft
wants to merge 42 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from
Draft

Conversation

yuxies
Copy link

@yuxies yuxies commented Feb 10, 2022

  • Update Interdiction type problem data reading in MibSModel;
  • Update two Benders cuts to reflect the changes in MibS valid inequality paper;
  • Add a fractional cut option to multiple cuts and update related control parameter settings; update print messages for several cuts;
  • Fix bugs and clean up redundant statements or variables;
  • All changes above are applied to (only) deterministic blocks in the master branch.

tkralphs and others added 30 commits December 29, 2021 01:51
…IC, make it so that IC is valid even when lower level is fractional, make sure IC is only called when all conditions are met
…to be infeasible, since this can happen when the the relaxed solution of the lower-level problem is fractional and has value below the optimum
…y fractional. This is OK, but the subproblem maybe infeasible in this case. We may need a separate parameter to allow these cuts. Also allow hypercube cuts to be generated whenever linking variables are integral.
…of turning off cut generator alltogether, setting better defaults for cuts
@CLAassistant
Copy link

CLAassistant commented Feb 10, 2022

CLA assistant check
All committers have signed the CLA.

@tkralphs
Copy link
Member

So all the commits attributed to me were cherry-picked? What about the additional ones by you? I guess those were also cherry-picked?

@yuxies
Copy link
Author

yuxies commented Mar 18, 2022

The commits before the force-push + yesterday's last two commits were cherry-picked from stable/1.2.

And other commits not related to stable/1.2 but I pushed to the same branch so they are still showing up here are

  • a1bbeee: cleaned the rounding procedure of LR relaxation solution when creating bilevel; it also fixed a bug;
  • 76cb6be and e166fac are preparation for the heurstic solution tag reorg, as the current open PR in stable/1.2... I am still working on it.

@tkralphs
Copy link
Member

OK, so should I merge this then?

@yuxies
Copy link
Author

yuxies commented Mar 20, 2022

will run some tests tonight and report the results here. After that should be yes.

@yuxies
Copy link
Author

yuxies commented Mar 30, 2022

Ran experiments using version f735ff2 on both dataIBLP-DEN (w or w/o linking pool + different cut options) and MIBLP-XU(default, i.e. fractional + hypercube IC). The objective values obtained agree with previous builds. So the commits above should be ready to merge.

(Again, all the changes above are not tested with stochastic cases, and will need to do so sometime in the future.)

@tkralphs
Copy link
Member

I'm looking at this again now and I don't really understand how you approached this. We merged the changes from stable to master around 29 Nov 2019 in f19a5a5. I think we should be able to do the same now to just make sure that no commits get lost. Once we have the merge done, then we can separately add your commits on top, as needed. But I also wonder whether any of your commits are also appropriate in stable. Should we commit them to stable first and then merge?

@yuxies
Copy link
Author

yuxies commented Oct 27, 2023

Some of my (most recent) commits listed here have already been merged to stable/1.2, and some of them may not be applied now because they may be conflict with other commits merged in the past year.

The feasibility check module looks very different in the master version due to the introduction of stochastic scenarios. I will need to read through and think again before clean up.

@tkralphs
Copy link
Member

OK, but it's still the case that all the changes from stable/1.2 were merged not that long ago. There haven't been a lot of commits since then. I don't see that we need to cherry pick, just a plain merge should be OK. There might be a few conflicts to resolve, but I don't see it as being something very difficult, unless I'm wrong.

@yuxies yuxies marked this pull request as draft January 25, 2024 04:17
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