Misc

[jschueller]

No description provided.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 90.90909% with 1 line in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 73.16%. Comparing base (2709311) to head (8bbd64d).
⚠️ Report is 3 commits behind head on latest.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
highs/util/HFactor.cpp	88.88%	1 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           latest    #3131      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   73.17%   73.16%   -0.01%     
==========================================
  Files         430      430              
  Lines      103967   103969       +2     
  Branches    16718    16719       +1     
==========================================
- Hits        76076    76070       -6     
- Misses      27615    27623       +8     
  Partials      276      276              

☔ View full report in Codecov by Harness.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

[jajhall]

In the first case, I expect that multi_nFinish is necessarily positive, otherwise iRows[multi_nFinish - 1] would always have been an error. Do you have evidence of multi_nFinish being zero?

In the second case, I'd have thought that h_pivot_value[i]; is necessarily nonzero, so your safeguard is unnecessary. Do you have evidence of h_pivot_value[i]; being zero?

[jschueller]

hello, I have no evidence of actual errors, but it may be safer that way

[jajhall]

hello, I have no evidence of actual errors, but it may be safer that way

The test for zero is unnecessary, since the value is a simplex pivot that is logically nonzero when chosen. Hence the conditional branch in the loop is a performance hit (in principle).

[jschueller]

ok, nevermind

[jajhall]

ok, nevermind

The first case does look odd - the sort of thing that AI might well pick up - so I'll look into it.