fix ambiguity#748
Conversation
|
I caught this with SCIP: |
|
For info, other ambiguities are present: |
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #748 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 94.26% 94.31% +0.05%
==========================================
Files 56 56
Lines 6170 6211 +41
==========================================
+ Hits 5816 5858 +42
+ Misses 354 353 -1
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
They should not happen, e.g. because slack bridges do not bridge |
|
We are missing a tests. I suggest to do these changes: The bridge type should be concrete here: And |
Why? It is accepting a sub-type of |
We always give a concrete type to this function: |
|
Fixed in last commit, it calls concrete_bridge_type |
|
You didn't push the commit |
|
Last commit from 6 hours ago, calls concrete_bridge_type |
|
It should be called in the tests and the methods should only be defined when the first argument is concrete |
|
I won't have time for this before at least sunday evening I think
…On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 5:42 PM Benoît Legat ***@***.***> wrote:
It should be called in the tests and the methods should only be defined
when the first argument is concrete
—
You are receiving this because you authored the thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#748>,
or mute the thread
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AB2FDMTJ3BJFH5X7ZYDCJNDPXAEFJANCNFSM4HO3V67Q>
.
--
Mathieu Besançon
|
|
No rush, MOI v0.9 won't be tagged with only 2 solvers ready: #736 |
|
ok, tests pass, and SCIP tests also with this version |
|
@blegat seems good here |
There was a method ambiguity because of the non-sub-typing in the indicator bridge definition.