Closed tpaviot closed 3 years ago
Would this already work for time intervals :open_mouth: ?
Merging #56 (33a14ff) into master (ceeea8a) will decrease coverage by
0.05%
. The diff coverage is92.94%
.
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #56 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 94.86% 94.81% -0.06%
==========================================
Files 30 30
Lines 3272 3354 +82
==========================================
+ Hits 3104 3180 +76
- Misses 168 174 +6
Impacted Files | Coverage Δ | |
---|---|---|
test/test_indicator.py | 95.62% <89.83%> (-3.41%) |
:arrow_down: |
processscheduler/problem.py | 97.03% <100.00%> (+0.67%) |
:arrow_up: |
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact)
,ø = not affected
,? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update ceeea8a...33a14ff. Read the comment docs.
Currently only for one single time interval. You cannot pass a list of time intervals. And I did not test to add multiple single intervals, for example:
problem.add_objective_flowtime_single_resource(worker_1, time_interval = [40, 50])
problem.add_objective_flowtime_single_resource(worker_1, time_interval = [60, 70])
Well still a big progress!! Thanks you!
This needs to be tested but I merge the branch. I think this implementation is not efficient in terms of computing time, we'll see later for any improvement, let's first check the expected behavior is correct.
Since this is finally an objective, its API for many time intervals would be add many objectives right? About what you were saying about performance, I wonder if this volume of objectives would enlarge the problem too much. In my case, I would have to add:
I can try it out though and see how it works! Other possibility is to first test it before applying it to my problem, so I could also make some tests.
Also, I wonder if this would currently work in the new multiobjective incremental solver, with other max objective like utilization, since these flowtime_single_resource are min objectives right?
Thank you!
Ok, let me know about your tests. I ran a few tests with the new multiobjective incremental solver, it's much more convenient than the previous optimizer.
Nice! Although with much more convinient, you mean it might be duable to have 140 objectives? And also, is the new solver already compatible with mixed max and min objectives? (to make tests mixing them)
Don't know what it gives with so many objectives, you should test (first try with 2, 4, 10, before trying 140!). The new multi-objective solver can deal with both min/max objectives (see last commit fb64fff).
Yes of course, I'll start simple haha. Thanks!
Related to issue #50
to use: