Conversation
|
Closes #2781 |
Codecov Report❌ Patch coverage is
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## latest #2787 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage 80.33% 80.33%
=======================================
Files 348 348
Lines 86084 86084
=======================================
Hits 69152 69152
Misses 16932 16932 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. 🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
|
Closes #2752 |
filikat
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
In definitions.md for option solver, should there be both "pdlp" and "hipdlp"? The option for "pdlp" should also coincide with what is used in the Summary of solvers.md.
It seems like you removed the statements "Setting the solver option to ... forces the ... solver to be used" from the LP section, since they are now present in the summary. But they still appear in the QP section. For consistency, it may be better to remove them from there as well.
Yes, the "hipdlp" value for solver is still in Yanyu's branch, so that she can run cuPDLPc (by setting "pdlp") for sanity checking, but it will disappear when we have only her PDLP solver
Indeed, I've updated solvers.md |
|
Documentation is fixed |
|
@jajhall Maybe we should specify that options |
…n_value as relating to active set QP solver
This page will be correct when cuPDLP-C is replaced by HiPDLP, and the QP IPM solver is added, so this is just a draft PR