-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 97
More flexible Model with StructOfConstraints #1267
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
Conversation
bb970bf to
ddf9fe7
Compare
86eabef to
72eeb41
Compare
ddf9fe7 to
3c29f6b
Compare
6ea998c to
50319cf
Compare
3c29f6b to
8afdfe2
Compare
50319cf to
86138da
Compare
odow
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Do we have some benchmarks for obvious performance regressions?
odow
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I ran the benchmarks. They're slightly slower, but I can tidy up after you've finished making large changes. It's probably just the precompile statements that need tweaking.
This refactors the code of
AbstractModelto make it more versatile.Instead of having one field for each function type which contains a struct with one field for each set type, it now has a field
constraintsthat contains one field for each function type, ...As discussed in #1261, by changing the type of the
constraintsfield, we can now target many more types of models.The base is set to #1245 so that it shows the diff with that PR but this is going to be merged to master once #1245 is merged.
StructOfConstraintsinstead of adding them as type parameter as otherwise the type can be huge. This option will be used by@model.StructOfConstraint