Experimental Support for Grouping Constraints over Common Patterns - #44
Open
pulsipher wants to merge 38 commits into
Open
Experimental Support for Grouping Constraints over Common Patterns#44pulsipher wants to merge 38 commits into
pulsipher wants to merge 38 commits into
Conversation
Codecov Report❌ Patch coverage is
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #44 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 85.99% 90.44% +4.45%
==========================================
Files 6 7 +1
Lines 757 1026 +269
==========================================
+ Hits 651 928 +277
+ Misses 106 98 -8 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Harness. 🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
This file contains hidden or 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
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
This adds experimental support of detecting common constraint patterns, grouping them together, and adding each group as a single
ExaModels.Constraint. Givenmodel::InfiniteModel, the user syntax is simply:or
Support is limited to:
These restrictions could be overcome in the future, but that would be in separate PR.
Early testers can try this out via:
Possible improvements include:
Handling indexed infinite parameters(beyond scope, requires variables with sparse indexing)Removing recursion(beyond scope, ExaModels is not well-suited for deeply nested exprs)Removing unnecessary asserts(keep for now just to be save)Handling constraints with measures(beyond scope, measures deserve their own PR)Investigating how this might apply to objective functions(future PR will extend this to objectives)