Skip to content

Take into account discreteness for no cost zero variables in bounds section #2299

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

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: latest
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

MaximSmolskiy
Copy link

It seems that there was inconsistency in https://github.com/ERGO-Code/HiGHS/blob/master/src/io/HMPSIO.cpp#L879 with https://github.com/ERGO-Code/HiGHS/blob/master/src/io/HMPSIO.cpp#L724-L728

As I understand, for example, https://github.com/ERGO-Code/HiGHS/blob/master/src/io/HMPSIO.cpp#L925-L927 - for no cost zero integer variable with lb = 0 and ub = +inf LI BOUND will be written (unless write_no_cost_zero_columns = false) and then maybe it is worth taking this into account in num_no_cost_zero_columns_in_bounds_section variable and corresponding log

Copy link

codecov bot commented Apr 20, 2025

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 0% with 1 line in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 79.21%. Comparing base (14e7a68) to head (6c135f9).
Report is 220 commits behind head on latest.

Files with missing lines Patch % Lines
highs/io/HMPSIO.cpp 0.00% 1 Missing ⚠️
Additional details and impacted files
@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           latest    #2299   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   79.20%   79.21%           
=======================================
  Files         343      343           
  Lines       83866    83857    -9     
=======================================
- Hits        66429    66427    -2     
+ Misses      17437    17430    -7     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
  • ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

@jajhall jajhall self-requested a review April 21, 2025 08:53
@jajhall jajhall self-assigned this Apr 21, 2025
@jajhall
Copy link
Member

jajhall commented May 9, 2025

We've not forgotten about this: just rather busy ATM

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.

2 participants