#6869 closed enhancement (fixed)
[with patch, positive review] LP and MIP Solvers in Sage ( with symbolics )
Reported by: | ncohen | Owned by: | jkantor |
---|---|---|---|
Priority: | major | Milestone: | sage-4.1.2 |
Component: | numerical | Keywords: | |
Cc: | schilly, wdj, mvngu | Merged in: | Sage 4.1.2.alpha2 |
Authors: | Nathann Cohen | Reviewers: | David Joyner, Minh Van Nguyen |
Report Upstream: | Work issues: | ||
Branch: | Commit: | ||
Dependencies: | Stopgaps: |
Description
Hello everybody !!!
After the work done in #6502 I rewrote the whole class taking into account the fact that some people may want to use this class too, instead of just focusing on the fact I needed it quickly to write Graph-Theoretic functions.
Here is the new numerical.MIP class, using symbolics, I hope sufficiently documented and tested, and everything... Thank you for your help !! This should be the last run ;-)
To use it, you have to install either GLPK from ticket #6867 or Coin-OR CBC from #6868 ( if you have installed a former version, they won't be compatible ! )
The class and the doctests, though, should behave peacefully if none of them is installed ! :-)
Nathann
Attachments (1)
Change History (12)
comment:1 Changed 9 years ago by
- Summary changed from [with patch, needs work] LP and MIP Solvers in Sage ( with symbolics ) to [with patch, needs review] LP and MIP Solvers in Sage ( with symbolics )
comment:2 Changed 9 years ago by
comment:3 Changed 9 years ago by
- Summary changed from [with patch, needs review] LP and MIP Solvers in Sage ( with symbolics ) to [with patch, needs work] LP and MIP Solvers in Sage ( with symbolics )
The module sage/numerical/mip.pyx
should have 100% doctest coverage, given that it's being added to the Sage library:
[mvngu@sage numerical]$ sage -coverage mip.pyx ---------------------------------------------------------------------- mip.pyx ERROR: Please define a s == loads(dumps(s)) doctest. SCORE mip.pyx: 62% (18 of 29) Missing documentation: * __init__(self, value): * __str__(self): * __getitem__(self,i): * keys(self): * items(self): * depth(self): * values(self): Missing doctests: * __init__(self,sense=1): * _NormalForm(self,exp): * _addElementToRing(self): * __init__(self,x,f,dim=1): ----------------------------------------------------------------------
comment:4 Changed 9 years ago by
Done !
Changed 9 years ago by
comment:5 Changed 9 years ago by
- Summary changed from [with patch, needs work] LP and MIP Solvers in Sage ( with symbolics ) to [with patch, needs review] LP and MIP Solvers in Sage ( with symbolics )
comment:6 Changed 9 years ago by
ncohen asked this question in IRC:
10:45 < ncohen> mvngu: do you know what this is ? 10:45 < ncohen> ERROR: Please define a s == loads(dumps(s)) doctest.
This is encouraging you to define an equality method __eq__()
for each of the three classes MIP
, MIPSolverException
, and MIPVariable
. Say you have instantiated two objects of the class MIPVariable
. How can you test to see whether or not they are the same object? In Python, this is usually implemented in the method __equ__()
of a class. If a class defines this method, you can compare two objects of that class using the double-equal operator ==
. For example:
sage: a1 = AlphabeticStrings() sage: a2 = AlphabeticStrings() sage: a1 == a2 True
Take the case of writing the method __eq__()
for the class MIPVariable
. Are there criteria to tell us that two objects of the class MIPVariable
are the same? If m1
and m2
are two such objects, you can define them to be the same object if their corresponding attributes have the same values. Each object of MIPVariable
has these attributes: dim
, dict
, x
, f
. One way to write the __eq__()
method for MIPVariable
is this:
def __eq__(self, other): r""" <insert lengthy documentation here, with examples> """ return self.dim == other.dim and self.dict == other.dict and self.x == other.x and self.f == other.f
In the "EXAMPLES" section of that method, you should have an example as follows with appropriate values for x
, f
, and dim
:
sage: m = MIPVariable(someX, someF, someDim) sage: m == loads(dumps(m)) True
which should return True when you actually doctest the MIP module. Define a similar equality method for the other two classes.
One thing I dislike in code is to see it squashed together. This makes it more difficult to read, taking into account also that other people need to understand what that code does, its logical flow, and they might have been spending all day reading code. Good coding style is a plus here if you want your code to be as easily understandable as possible. Instead of doing this:
self.dim=dim self.dict={} self.x=x self.f=f
do this:
self.dim = dim self.dict = {} self.x = x self.f = f
Another issue is global namespace pollution. What I mean is that you should try to avoid as much as possible injecting your module, class, or function names into the global namespace when Sage loads itself. This is what you're currently doing with this code:
from sage.numerical.mip import *
What this means is that when you load Sage, all the class and function names defined in the module mip.pyx are loaded into the global namespace. An advantage to this is that a user doesn't have to first import the relevant class or function prior to using it. With the above import statement, I can do this
sage: m = MIPVariable(x,f)
Without the import statement, I would need to do this:
sage: from sage.numerical.mip import MIPVariable sage: m = MIPVariable(x,f)
I can see that importing stuff when Sage is being loaded saves a lot of time explicitly importing that stuff. But a downside is that the global namespace is being polluted with module, class or function names that are not really necessary to load at the start. As more names are put into the global namespace, it takes longer and longer to load Sage.
comment:7 Changed 9 years ago by
- Summary changed from [with patch, needs review] LP and MIP Solvers in Sage ( with symbolics ) to [with patch, positive review] LP and MIP Solvers in Sage ( with symbolics )
This applies fine to 4.1.2.a0 on an ubuntu 9.04 machine and passes sage -testall (with no packages, eg glpk, applied). The docstrings look fine (as before).
I then applies glpk and reran sage -testall. All tests passes sage -testall except this:
wdj@tinah:~/sagefiles/sage-4.1.2.alpha0$ ./sage -t "devel/sage/sage/server/notebook/cell.py" sage -t "devel/sage/sage/server/notebook/cell.py" *** *** Error: TIMED OUT! PROCESS KILLED! *** *** *** *** Error: TIMED OUT! *** *** *** *** Error: TIMED OUT! *** *** [366.5 s] exit code: 1024
I doubt this is related, so giving this a positive review.
comment:8 Changed 9 years ago by
See #6913 for a follow-up to this ticket. It addresses the issue of writing those __eq__()
methods.
comment:9 Changed 9 years ago by
- Merged in set to Sage 4.1.2.alpha2
- Resolution set to fixed
- Reviewers set to David Joyner, Minh Van Nguyen
- Status changed from new to closed
comment:10 Changed 9 years ago by
After going through this patch, I think it would be best to revert it before 4.1.2 is released. There is still a lot of things that need to be done to get it cleaned up. Some of the things,
- Almost all of the docstrings are incorrectly formatted.
- This module should _definitely_ not be a Cython module as it does not gain any benefit from Cython. It just makes Sage slower to compile and things harder to debug.
- Some of the naming conventions do not match Sage's conventions. (isbinary vs. is_binary). Also, names like the more explicit MixedIntegerProgram? are preferred over the shortened MIP.
- The optional spkgs should not install modules into the sage.* namespace (sage.numerical.mipGlpk). This is not the right way to do things and will eventually break. I think it also makes sense to use (and contribute to) something like ctypes-glpk to allow greater functionality and not reinvent the wheel.
I have some code that addresses some of these things that I'll put up shortly.
comment:11 Changed 9 years ago by
See #7012 for a follow up to this ticket. It addresses mhansen's suggestions.
This applies fine to 4.1.2.a0 and passes testall without any other packages installed (no glpk, etc).
Running more tests...