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

Backport some small changes from Scorpion. #207

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Jan 10, 2024

Conversation

jendrikseipp
Copy link
Contributor

No description provided.

@@ -120,7 +121,7 @@ def run_sat(configs, executable, sas_file, plan_manager, final_config,
configs, pos, search_cost_type, heuristic_cost_type,
executable, sas_file, plan_manager, timeout, memory)
if exitcode is None:
return
continue
Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

If one search has time limit 0 we want to switch to the next config, not abort the whole portfolio.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The rationale behind the original code is that each portfolio should have a non-zero relative time limit, else it shouldn't be part of the portfolio. This means that the time limit hits 0 for all configs at the same time (when the overall time limit is exhausted). So I don't see the purpose of the change. Can you say a scenario where it makes sense?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

If config5 has a low relative time limit in the portfolio file, it might get an absolute time limit of 0. But there could be a config6 with a high relative time limit that gets a non-zero absolute time limit.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

How? I don't understand. Is there rounding involved that can round down to 0?

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I see now that indeed this is potentially rounded down before we get here. Then the change makes sense, sorry for the noise.

@jendrikseipp jendrikseipp merged commit c08369e into aibasel:main Jan 10, 2024
12 checks passed
@jendrikseipp jendrikseipp deleted the backport-from-scorpion branch January 10, 2024 12:20
/* IntPacker expects all variables to have at least a domain size of
two. This is not the case for some domain-abstracted tasks. */
int domain_size = max(2, var.get_domain_size());
variable_ranges.push_back(domain_size);
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

See comment above.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants