-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 109
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
Populate inform dict for all optimizers #394
Merged
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
6 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
3f8875b
populate inform dict
ewu63 a91a482
bugfix version bump
marcomangano 44a9ed2
revert version bump
marcomangano 864c561
use empty string instead of None
ewu63 6f7a181
test print(sol)
ewu63 cec9046
Merge branch 'main' into bugfix/nsga2
marcomangano File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains 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
This file contains 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
This file contains 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
This file contains 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
This file contains 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
Oops, something went wrong.
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.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Was "value" intentionally set to a string value in these optimizers?
As far as I can tell, this was always meant to be an integer return code, and we have logic that expects that to be the case:
Just wondering what the circumstances would be where we should expect this value to be a string...
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Hmmm.. I see that we were checking if "value" was in the dict.. and if it is there we expect it to be an int....
So we were handling the case for the optimizers that didn't populate it... I guess we should consider an empty string value to be an indication that the optimizer doesn't provide the value...
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yeah I see, I guess we need to agree on a convention for optimizers that don't have any informs. I'm happy to do whatever you guys want, which could be
None
In the longer term, we should probably make dataclasses and type annotate these better.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
In retrospect this PR is probably not the best implementation, and was done purely to make the solution object printing work without changing the logic there...
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
yeah, it may be that just updating pyOpt_solution.py to only print values for those keys if they exist might a preferable solution, keeping the semantics/typing a bit more rigorous, but it's easy enough for us to handle the empty string (which we will do). Also agree with your long term thoughts.