included update_warm_start functionality#37
Conversation
|
|
imciner2
left a comment
imciner2
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Sorry for the delay in reviewing this. I just had two comments on the contents of this.
| } | ||
|
|
||
| // update warm_start | ||
| if (!strcmp("update_warm_start", cmd)) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| if (!strcmp("update_warm_start", cmd)) { | |
| if (!strcmp("warm_start", cmd)) { |
The class wrapper doesn't call update_warm_start actually, it will call warm_start when it wants to update both vectors.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actually, I may have gotten confused here because I didn't see this was the emosqp file, so this change probably isn't actually needed (although we need to document this now in https://github.com/oxfordcontrol/osqp/blob/master/docs/codegen/matlab.rst as well).
| y_vec = copyToCfloatVector(mxGetPr(y), (&workspace)->data->m); | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| if(!mxIsEmpty(y)){ |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is there a reason the call to warm starting is guarded against y being non-empty? As another note, with the update above to make this function callable from the wrapper, it should be guaranteed to get both an x and y to warm start.
|
dear Ian,
the emosqp interface does indeed not offer the same functionality compared to the "class based" Matlab interface of OSQP.
best regards,
Raoul
De : Ian McInerney ***@***.***>
Envoyé : vendredi 28 mai 2021 21:27
À : oxfordcontrol/osqp-matlab ***@***.***>
Cc : Herzog Raoul ***@***.***>; Author ***@***.***>
Objet : Re: [oxfordcontrol/osqp-matlab] included update_warm_start functionality (#37)
@imciner2 commented on this pull request.
________________________________
In codegen/files_to_generate/emosqp_mex.c<#37 (comment)>:
@@ -299,6 +299,34 @@ void mexFunction(int nlhs, mxArray *plhs[], int nrhs, const mxArray *prhs[])
return;
}
+ // update warm_start
+ if (!strcmp("update_warm_start", cmd)) {
Actually, I may have gotten confused here because I didn't see this was the emosqp file, so this change probably isn't actually needed (although we need to document this now in https://github.com/oxfordcontrol/osqp/blob/master/docs/codegen/matlab.rst as well).
—
You are receiving this because you authored the thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub<#37 (comment)>, or unsubscribe<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ATZN2G7NBHDTNKWBN53YWG3TP7U7JANCNFSM43MXTL3Q>.
|
|
Sorry about that confusion. My second comment on the if statement guarding the call to the actual OSQP update function still needs to be addressed though, since only checking for y non-empty seems to be incorrect. That function requires both x and y, so we should be making sure they both are non-empty for the call and throwing an error if either are empty I believe. |
|
Hi Ian,
in principle a warm start with only x and without y is possible, but indeed the question is whether it makes sense ...
By the way, the same question applies to the
if (!strcmp("update_bounds", cmd))
a couple of lines above. Does it make sense to provide only l without u ?
Do you plan a new release of osqp in the next future ?
best regards from Western Switzerland,
Raoul
De : Ian McInerney ***@***.***>
Envoyé : dimanche 30 mai 2021 15:30
À : oxfordcontrol/osqp-matlab ***@***.***>
Cc : Herzog Raoul ***@***.***>; Author ***@***.***>
Objet : Re: [oxfordcontrol/osqp-matlab] included update_warm_start functionality (#37)
Sorry about that confusion. My second comment on the if statement guarding the call to the actual OSQP update function still needs to be addressed though, since only checking for y non-empty seems to be incorrect. That function requires both x and y, so we should be making sure they both are non-empty for the call and throwing an error if either are non-empty I believe.
—
You are receiving this because you authored the thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub<#37 (comment)>, or unsubscribe<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ATZN2G74II4Z7HTXT7HH7XLTQI4VZANCNFSM43MXTL3Q>.
|
The function to call if you only want to warm start one of them is |
|
We plan to remove |
|
Basically what I am saying we should do is have code before the call to because otherwise we can get a segfault/random data if one isn't specified. |
4 participants
No description provided.