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

Fix integer powers to return appropriate type instead of QuadExpr #3474

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Sep 4, 2023

Conversation

odow
Copy link
Member

@odow odow commented Aug 31, 2023

Closes #3454

This is technically breaking, since it returns a different type from before, but I'd also argue that it is a bug fix, because x^0 and x^1 should not return a quadratic expression.

Needs:

@odow
Copy link
Member Author

odow commented Aug 31, 2023

There are quite a few failures, but it is't obvious if it's because of this PR.

Here's the latest master: https://github.com/jump-dev/JuMP.jl/actions/runs/6042942250

@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Aug 31, 2023

Codecov Report

Patch coverage: 100.00% and no project coverage change.

Comparison is base (e4d682d) 98.09% compared to head (f64a855) 98.09%.
Report is 6 commits behind head on master.

Additional details and impacted files
@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master    #3474   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   98.09%   98.09%           
=======================================
  Files          37       37           
  Lines        5501     5506    +5     
=======================================
+ Hits         5396     5401    +5     
  Misses        105      105           
Files Changed Coverage Δ
src/operators.jl 96.84% <100.00%> (ø)

... and 2 files with indirect coverage changes

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

@pulsipher
Copy link
Contributor

There are quite a few failures, but it is't obvious if it's because of this PR.

Here's the latest master: https://github.com/jump-dev/JuMP.jl/actions/runs/6042942250

To be clear, this test is the current master without this PR, right? The InfiniteOpt failures are just because a few expressions a slightly different now with the use of move_factors_into_sums and all this is fixed with infiniteopt/InfiniteOpt.jl#308.

For the UnitJuMP and SumOfSquares, it appears the new operator overloading leads to some minor bugs based on assumptions made with the old API.

@odow
Copy link
Member Author

odow commented Sep 3, 2023

I think this PR is safe to merge.

@mlubin
Copy link
Member

mlubin commented Sep 4, 2023

What about the performance impact of no longer being type stable? Should we add a note on the performance tips page?

@odow
Copy link
Member Author

odow commented Sep 4, 2023

It's already not type stable because of the case when n > 2. I don't think this needs an explicit callout. I find it hard to believe a bottleneck in someone's code is going to be writing x^2 instead of x * x.

@mlubin
Copy link
Member

mlubin commented Sep 4, 2023

It's already not type stable because of the case when n > 2.

But it is type stable in JuMP 1.14, right?

@odow
Copy link
Member Author

odow commented Sep 4, 2023

But it is type stable in JuMP 1.14, right?

Yes. We needed to give up type stability, or else something like x^3 wouldn't work and you'd need to write x^3.0.

For a real-world motivation for this change, see:
https://github.com/lanl-ansi/PowerModels.jl/pull/858/files#diff-7a544f21e32c63ffcff0a5cc9ba4bbf8218aca07ed057b21a238980bbdf4d5fb
I think getting the objective type "correct" is more important than type stability.

x-ref #3106 (comment)

@mlubin
Copy link
Member

mlubin commented Sep 4, 2023

I think getting the objective type "correct" is more important than type stability.

I agree with the code change. I do expect at least one person to be surprised either about the change in return types or the lack of type stability. It at least warrants an explicit statement in the release notes.

@odow
Copy link
Member Author

odow commented Sep 4, 2023

It at least warrants an explicit statement in the release notes.

Yip. I think the release notes will need to be quite detailed anyway, because it's quite a big change. Let me start a separate PR for that and we can iterate.

@odow odow mentioned this pull request Sep 4, 2023
25 tasks
@odow
Copy link
Member Author

odow commented Sep 4, 2023

I've made a note in #3485 to mention in the changelog.

@odow odow merged commit a0e451c into master Sep 4, 2023
11 checks passed
@odow odow deleted the od/change-integer-power branch September 4, 2023 20:40
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Consider changing x^1 to return x
4 participants