Skip to content
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

feat: add support for setting initial solutions with SCIP #74

Merged
merged 6 commits into from
Dec 30, 2024

Conversation

KnorpelSenf
Copy link
Contributor

@KnorpelSenf KnorpelSenf commented Dec 29, 2024

Title says it all.

Depends on #71 being merged first.

When these changes are applied, two out of the three large open-source solvers CBC, HiGHs, and SCIP support initial solutions. Adding this feature for HiGHS needs support in the underlying bindings. This is tracked in rust-or/highs#21. Proprietary solvers would also need updated bindings first. Nevertheless, I'd argue that this

closes #55.

@KnorpelSenf KnorpelSenf changed the title feat: add support for initial solutions with SCIP feat: add support for setting initial solutions with SCIP Dec 29, 2024
src/solvers/scip.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@KnorpelSenf
Copy link
Contributor Author

@lovasoa could you publish a new release after this is reviewed and merged?

@lovasoa lovasoa merged commit 8b55ac4 into rust-or:main Dec 30, 2024
1 check passed
@KnorpelSenf KnorpelSenf deleted the initial-solutions-scip branch December 30, 2024 12:34
@KnorpelSenf
Copy link
Contributor Author

@lovasoa hang on for a few more minutes

@KnorpelSenf
Copy link
Contributor Author

oh, I'm late, damn it

@KnorpelSenf
Copy link
Contributor Author

@lovasoa how would we do this for HiGHS with the new changes in rust-or/highs#22? Do we now have to derive the dual solution from the given initial solution, or is this something we want to delegate to library consumers?

@lovasoa
Copy link
Collaborator

lovasoa commented Jan 15, 2025

I honestly have no idea what's best here

@KnorpelSenf
Copy link
Contributor Author

KnorpelSenf commented Jan 15, 2025

It turns out that we can just pass None so I guess we don't really have to worry about it. I opened #83.

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.

Give a solution to the solver
2 participants