-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 401
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
Add standard_form modifications #1935
Conversation
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #1935 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 91.06% 91.07% +<.01%
==========================================
Files 32 32
Lines 3950 3954 +4
==========================================
+ Hits 3597 3601 +4
Misses 353 353
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #1935 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 91.06% 91.07% +<.01%
==========================================
Files 32 32
Lines 3950 4256 +306
==========================================
+ Hits 3597 3876 +279
- Misses 353 380 +27
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
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.
What do you think about corresponding getters standard_form_coefficient
and standard_form_rhs
?
I don't support renaming |
Not sure if this counts as breaking because it adds deprecations. |
Do you think it should be included in v0.19.1 ? |
I don't mind. It isn't urgent, so it can probably wait. (Selfish reason, I'll have to update SDDP.jl, and relying on a patch 0.19.1 isn't fun.) |
Even if there is warning, if someone release a package using this function and people use this package, when updating JuMP, the package will throw warning so it is kind of breaking. |
Closes #1890
I have deprecated
set_coefficient
in favor ofset_standard_form_coefficient
.