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

[joss-reviews#2974] Checkpoints used inconsistently #64

Closed
sjvrijn opened this issue May 27, 2021 · 3 comments · Fixed by #55
Closed

[joss-reviews#2974] Checkpoints used inconsistently #64

sjvrijn opened this issue May 27, 2021 · 3 comments · Fixed by #55
Assignees

Comments

@sjvrijn
Copy link
Contributor

sjvrijn commented May 27, 2021

Related: openjournals/joss-reviews#2974 and #15

See e.g. the difference between

if checkpoint is not None:
checkpoint()

and
if checkpoint is not None:
checkpoint(self.current_eval)

@sjvrijn
Copy link
Contributor Author

sjvrijn commented May 27, 2021

Instead of the externally referenced version given in the tutorial section, it is probably better to have a checkpoint function always accept the MOEAD algorithm object as only argument. This would allow for a generic checkpoint function to be written without it being tied to a single MOEAD instance. I.e.

def checkpoint(moead_algorithm: AbstractMoead):
    ....  # perform checkpoint actions here

with the call then becoming

if checkpoint: 
    checkpoint(self)

A simple checkpoint function could then for example be added to the tools submodule as an example.

@geoffreyp
Copy link
Contributor

The documentation and the code are updated in the PR #55 (commit 4717ec3)

@sjvrijn
Copy link
Contributor Author

sjvrijn commented Jun 3, 2021

This issue can be closed when PR #55 is merged

@geoffreyp geoffreyp linked a pull request Jun 4, 2021 that will close this issue
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants