New KNITRO direct solver interface #3707
Open
+1,660
−24
Conversation
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
eminyouskn
force-pushed
the
main
branch
2 times, most recently
from
611fb3b to
0d7a162
Compare
Codecov Report❌ Patch coverage is Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #3707 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 89.31% 89.34% +0.03%
==========================================
Files 896 906 +10
Lines 103687 104446 +759
==========================================
+ Hits 92609 93319 +710
- Misses 11078 11127 +49
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more. ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. 🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
|
Hi @eminyouskn - okay, so, the tests are running but a large number of them are failing. Here is part of the stacktrace: Most of the failures are just tolerance problems / the tolerance needs to be loosened. |
|
One-off failures: Second one-off: |
|
Thanks @mrmundt for the report. I didn’t run these tests locally since I didn’t have NumPy installed, and in that case, the tests are skipped. I’ll make sure to check them before pushing code from now on. I do have a question: is there a way to adjust the tolerance for all these tests at once? Ideally, we’d only change it for Knitro, but I imagine that might be more complicated. Regarding the two remaining failures, I’ve already fixed the one related to the objective. However, I’m not sure how to address the stale one, it’s not clear to me what exactly that test is supposed to check. |
|
@mrmundt Thanks for your comments. I’ve addressed the majority of them. For two of your comments, I left my original implementation and added my reasoning. If you feel my explanations are not convincing, I’m open to adjusting the code accordingly. |
mrmundt
reviewed
Sep 25, 2025
mrmundt
requested changes
Sep 25, 2025
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I swear, I am almost done leaving comments. This is looking great. I found one uncaught typo and have a couple of suggestions. Also, I noticed that you don't use a logger anywhere. Not saying you have to, but you might consider doing so for any helpful messages / debugging for users' benefit?
Co-authored-by: Miranda Mundt <55767766+mrmundt@users.noreply.github.com>
mrmundt
approved these changes
Sep 25, 2025
|
Thanks @mrmundt for the quick and thorough review. As you mentioned, I didn’t use the logger, everything requiring user attention is either handled directly or raised an error, in which case the higher-level code is responsible for communicating it to the user. |
|
However, your point about debugging is valid. I need to consider whether there are parts that should be logged specifically for debugging purposes. |
|
@mrmundt One of the two failing tests doesn’t seem related to Knitro. For the other one, could you share the output so I can work on fixing it? |
Yup, this one should be an easy fix: Just update |
|
Thanks @mrmundt for the report. I’d prefer not to change the test since it should pass as is. I believe I found the cause of the failure, so I’ll add a fix. |
mrmundt
requested changes
Sep 29, 2025
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@eminyouskn - I realized one thing is definitely missing! Can you please update the docs to include knitro? https://github.com/Pyomo/pyomo/blob/main/doc/OnlineDocs/explanation/experimental/solvers.rst
|
@mrmundt done! |
mrmundt
reviewed
Sep 29, 2025
Comment on lines
+57
to
+59
| * - KNITRO | ||
| - ``knitroampl`` | ||
| - ``knitro_direct`` |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Isn't it just called knitro_direct in both SolverFactories?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Nope the old interface used AMPL to read and write the file so it was called knitroampl
There was a problem hiding this comment.
That isn't the intent of this table, though! The table is meant to show "how to access V2 interface." So, for example, you see that for ipopt, you call either ipopt_v2 if you are using the legacy SolverFactory, but just ipopt if you are using the new SolverFactory.
For this one, it'd be accessed the same way, no matter which SolverFactory: knitro_direct. If someone accesses knitroampl, they are getting the old interface.
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.
Fixes NA
Summary/Motivation:
This PR introduced a new KNITRO direct solver interface.
Changes proposed in this PR:
Legal Acknowledgement
By contributing to this software project, I have read the contribution guide and agree to the following terms and conditions for my contribution: