Skip to content

Conversation

blegat
Copy link
Member

@blegat blegat commented Aug 12, 2025

Fix for the issues detected in the SolverTests run of #2808
I did not add any test since the test is in #2810
I did #2810 in a separate PR not only to show in CI that it would have caught this one but also to avoid delaying this PR and hence #2808 in case #2810 requires some discussion

@blegat blegat changed the title Fix ConstraintDual getter for SplitHyperRectangleBridge Fix ConstraintDual transformation for SplitHyperRectangleBridge Aug 12, 2025
@odow
Copy link
Member

odow commented Aug 12, 2025

I don't like that all the solver-tests are now going through this bridge. Is that what we want? Or do we need to change the bridge weight?

@odow
Copy link
Member

odow commented Aug 12, 2025

@odow
Copy link
Member

odow commented Aug 12, 2025

It looks like this fixed some errors, but there are a couple of other issues

@odow odow merged commit b3e7bff into master Aug 12, 2025
97 of 101 checks passed
@odow odow deleted the bl/splithyperdual branch August 12, 2025 22:52
@blegat
Copy link
Member Author

blegat commented Aug 13, 2025

I don't think it's an issue that this bridge is now used. If you want to go from Interval to Nonnegatives, it makes sense

@blegat
Copy link
Member Author

blegat commented Aug 13, 2025

If you go Interval -> LessThan and GreaterThan then you still need 2 bridges to create Nonnegatives. If you go Interval to Hyperrectangle, only one bridge is left. What do you think it's an issue that we use this bridge ?

@odow
Copy link
Member

odow commented Aug 13, 2025

It makes sense that this bridge is chosen. It's just a large change (evidenced by the pretty broad failure of solver tests). But maybe that's okay. It's good if Hyperrectange gets more use

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants