Possible bug in indices? about jumper.jl HOT 12 CLOSED

You're definitely on master?

from jumper.jl.

Yeah, just pulled again...

Vishal Gupta
PhD Candidate, 2014
Operations Research Center
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
www.mit.edu/~vgupta1/

On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 9:35 PM, Iain Dunning [email protected]:

You're definitely on master?

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com//issues/24#issuecomment-40780073
.

from jumper.jl.

OK, can you pull and try again?

from jumper.jl.

Nope... If it helps, the issue is that length(coeff_coeff) = 1, and where trying to access element 2.

from jumper.jl.

So, for the moment, is the branch safe or broken?

from jumper.jl.

Ahh I missed the other one.
Not sure what you mean about the branch - I'm working on master.

from jumper.jl.

(well, fixing master)

from jumper.jl.

By branch i meant master.... :) is master safe?

Vishal Gupta
PhD Candidate, 2014
Operations Research Center
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
www.mit.edu/~vgupta1/

On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 9:55 PM, Iain Dunning [email protected]:

Ahh I missed the other one.
Not sure what you mean about the branch - I'm working on master.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com//issues/24#issuecomment-40780831
.

from jumper.jl.

I'll never put it in a state where the tests fail - doesn't mean there aren't bugs, but it should be monotonically improving

from jumper.jl.

:) Thanks. you're a star. It seems to be running now. I'll let you know
if anything looks suspect.

VG

Vishal Gupta
PhD Candidate, 2014
Operations Research Center
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
www.mit.edu/~vgupta1/

On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 9:57 PM, Iain Dunning [email protected]:

I'll never put it in a state where the tests fail - doesn't mean there
aren't bugs, but it should be monotonically improving

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com//issues/24#issuecomment-40780943
.

from jumper.jl.

Very keen to hear if the objectives match.
Although possibly all the bugs are now actually ironed out, I've got a plan for how to make sure the code is even more robust (haha)

from jumper.jl.

The objectives do match for the robust model. (Sorry, I should have told you that earlier), and they match the nominal when Gamma =0.

This 2nd bug cropped up when using an affine formulation. Initial tests on the affine suggest taht they too do match!

The world is happiness and glee!

from jumper.jl.