repo_name stringlengths 1 62 | dataset stringclasses 1
value | lang stringclasses 11
values | pr_id int64 1 20.1k | owner stringlengths 2 34 | reviewer stringlengths 2 39 | diff_hunk stringlengths 15 262k | code_review_comment stringlengths 1 99.6k |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
timefold-solver | github_2023 | java | 1,341 | TimefoldAI | zepfred | @@ -19,15 +19,16 @@
final class DynamicPropagationQueue<Tuple_ extends AbstractTuple, Carrier_ extends AbstractPropagationMetadataCarrier<Tuple_>>
implements PropagationQueue<Carrier_> {
+ private static final int INITIAL_CAPACITY = 1000; // Selected arbitrarily. | Would it make sense to use the entity count to estimate capacity? |
timefold-solver | github_2023 | java | 1,324 | TimefoldAI | zepfred | @@ -14,19 +14,37 @@
final class ComparisonIndexer<T, Key_ extends Comparable<Key_>>
implements Indexer<T> {
- private final int propertyIndex;
+ private final KeyRetriever<Key_> keyRetriever;
private final Supplier<Indexer<T>> downstreamIndexerSupplier;
private final Comparator<Key_> keyComp... | The name `NoneIndexer` seems off to me. Maybe should choose a more meaningful name, such as `RawDataIndexer` or something similar. |
timefold-solver | github_2023 | java | 1,329 | TimefoldAI | zepfred | @@ -19,43 +19,26 @@
*/
public abstract sealed class AbstractTuple permits UniTuple, BiTuple, TriTuple, QuadTuple {
- /*
- * We create a lot of tuples, many of them having store size of 1.
- * If an array of size 1 was created for each such tuple, memory would be wasted and indirection created.
- * T... | Does this change increase memory consumption? |
timefold-solver | github_2023 | java | 1,312 | TimefoldAI | Christopher-Chianelli | @@ -0,0 +1,157 @@
+package ai.timefold.solver.core.impl.domain.solution.descriptor;
+
+import java.util.Collection;
+import java.util.Collections;
+import java.util.LinkedHashMap;
+import java.util.LinkedHashSet;
+import java.util.Map;
+import java.util.Objects;
+import java.util.Set;
+import java.util.stream.Collector... | Might be useful to add `toFullString` that ignores the limit (I find with `TRACKED_FULL_ASSERT`, the diff limit often hides changed variables). |
timefold-solver | github_2023 | java | 1,312 | TimefoldAI | Christopher-Chianelli | @@ -1265,6 +1268,68 @@ public <Score_ extends Score<Score_>> void setScore(Solution_ solution, Score_ s
((ScoreDescriptor) scoreDescriptor).setScore(solution, score);
}
+ public PlanningSolutionDiff<Solution_> diff(Solution_ oldSolution, Solution_ newSolution) {
+ var oldEntities = getEntityDe... | Might be useful to also add shadow variable differences (ex: users might be interested in the difference in arrival time of a visit, which is hard to know just from the list assigned to a vehicle). |
timefold-solver | github_2023 | java | 1,308 | TimefoldAI | triceo | @@ -78,6 +82,14 @@ class TimefoldProcessorMultipleSolversInvalidSolutionClassTest {
.hasMessageContaining(
"Unused classes ([ai.timefold.solver.quarkus.testdata.chained.domain.TestdataChainedQuarkusSolution]) found with a @PlanningSolution annotation."));
+ @Inject... | Why do we need to add these, if the test worked without them before?
Smells of a backwards incompatible change. |
timefold-solver | github_2023 | python | 1,271 | TimefoldAI | Christopher-Chianelli | @@ -653,13 +653,13 @@ def __init__(self, *,
class DeepPlanningClone(JavaAnnotation):
"""
- Marks a problem fact class as being required to be deep planning cloned. | Please keep this in the docstring; attributes that are instances of a planning_entity and planning_solution type are automatically deep cloned. |
timefold-solver | github_2023 | python | 1,271 | TimefoldAI | Christopher-Chianelli | @@ -954,3 +954,68 @@ class Solution:
solution = solver.solve(problem)
assert solution.score.score == 0
assert solution.entity.value == [1, 2, 3]
+
+def test_deep_clone_class():
+ @deep_planning_clone
+ @dataclass
+ class Code:
+ value: str
+ parent_entity: 'Entity' = field(default=... | There should be an assert here to test if the cloning created a new instance
```suggestion
assert solution.codes[0].parent_entity == solution.entities[0]
assert solution.codes[0] is not problem.codes[0]
``` |
timefold-solver | github_2023 | python | 1,271 | TimefoldAI | Christopher-Chianelli | @@ -653,13 +653,13 @@ def __init__(self, *,
class DeepPlanningClone(JavaAnnotation):
"""
- Marks a problem fact class as being required to be deep planning cloned.
- Not needed for a `planning_solution` or `planning_entity` because those are automatically deep cloned.
- It can also mark an attribute as... | ```suggestion
Marks an attribute as being required to be deep planning cloned.
Not needed for `planning_solution` or `planning_entity` attributes because those are automatically deep cloned.
``` |
timefold-solver | github_2023 | java | 1,306 | TimefoldAI | zepfred | @@ -0,0 +1,179 @@
+package ai.timefold.solver.core.impl.score.stream.bavet.visual;
+
+import java.util.ArrayList;
+import java.util.Comparator;
+import java.util.HashMap;
+import java.util.LinkedHashSet;
+import java.util.List;
+import java.util.Map;
+import java.util.Set;
+import java.util.TreeMap;
+import java.util.s... | I'm unsure about the method name. What about `parse`? |
timefold-solver | github_2023 | java | 1,300 | TimefoldAI | zepfred | @@ -0,0 +1,45 @@
+package ai.timefold.solver.core.api.function;
+
+import java.util.Objects;
+import java.util.function.Consumer;
+import java.util.function.Function;
+
+import org.jspecify.annotations.NonNull;
+
+/**
+ * Represents a function that accepts three arguments and returns no result. | ```suggestion
* Represents a function that accepts four arguments and returns no result.
``` |
timefold-solver | github_2023 | java | 1,300 | TimefoldAI | zepfred | @@ -31,7 +30,7 @@ public IndexedIfExistsBiNode(boolean shouldExist,
}
public IndexedIfExistsBiNode(boolean shouldExist,
- BiFunction<A, B, IndexProperties> mappingAB, Function<C, IndexProperties> mappingC,
+ BiMapping<A, B> mappingAB, IndexerFactory.UniMapping<C> mappingC, | ```suggestion
BiMapping<A, B> mappingAB, UniMapping<C> mappingC,
``` |
timefold-solver | github_2023 | java | 1,300 | TimefoldAI | zepfred | @@ -43,8 +43,8 @@ public ComparisonIndexer(JoinerType comparisonJoinerType, int propertyIndex,
}
@Override
- public ElementAwareListEntry<T> put(IndexProperties indexProperties, T tuple) {
- Key_ indexKey = indexProperties.toKey(propertyIndex);
+ public ElementAwareListEntry<T> put(Object index... | Can we guarantee that the type of `indexProperties` is always `Key_`?
It seems better to me that using a contract requiring the type `Key_` is preferable to allowing two possible types. |
timefold-solver | github_2023 | java | 1,300 | TimefoldAI | zepfred | @@ -526,87 +467,119 @@ public Function<Right_, ai.timefold.solver.core.impl.score.stream.bavet.common.i
for (int i = 0; i < mappingCount; i++) {
result[i] = mappings[i].apply(a);
}
- ret... | The logic seems correct. I wonder if the result type could be something other than `Object`, which would clarify the contract for inner nodes. |
timefold-solver | github_2023 | java | 1,300 | TimefoldAI | zepfred | @@ -430,61 +384,48 @@ public <A> Function<A, ai.timefold.solver.core.impl.score.stream.bavet.common.in
for (int i = 0; i < mappingCount; i++) {
result[i] = mappings[i].apply(a, b, c, d);
}
- ... | Is there a reason for not wrapping here? |
timefold-solver | github_2023 | java | 1,300 | TimefoldAI | zepfred | @@ -23,21 +22,19 @@ public abstract class AbstractIndexedIfExistsNode<LeftTuple_ extends AbstractTup
extends AbstractIfExistsNode<LeftTuple_, Right_>
implements LeftTupleLifecycle<LeftTuple_>, RightTupleLifecycle<UniTuple<Right_>> {
- private final Function<Right_, IndexProperties> mappingRight;
... | ```suggestion
protected AbstractIndexedIfExistsNode(boolean shouldExist, UniMapping<Right_> mappingRight,
``` |
timefold-solver | github_2023 | java | 1,300 | TimefoldAI | zepfred | @@ -44,17 +44,15 @@ public final void insertLeft(LeftTuple_ leftTuple) {
throw new IllegalStateException("Impossible state: the input for the tuple (" + leftTuple
+ ") was already added in the tupleStore.");
}
- ExistsCounter<LeftTuple_> counter = new ExistsCounter<>(le... | The tuple instance will be the first parameter in the forEach loop, even though it originally appears in the second position in the code. Will this break any existing code? |
timefold-solver | github_2023 | java | 1,300 | TimefoldAI | zepfred | @@ -77,9 +75,7 @@ public final void updateLeft(LeftTuple_ leftTuple) {
ElementAwareList<FilteringTracker<LeftTuple_>> leftTrackerList = leftTuple.getStore(inputStoreIndexLeftTrackerList);
leftTrackerList.forEach(FilteringTracker::remove);
counter.countRight = 0;
- for (... | Same as above |
timefold-solver | github_2023 | java | 1,300 | TimefoldAI | zepfred | @@ -106,32 +102,27 @@ public final void insertRight(UniTuple<Right_> rightTuple) {
throw new IllegalStateException("Impossible state: the input for the tuple (" + rightTuple
+ ") was already added in the tupleStore.");
}
- ElementAwareListEntry<UniTuple<Right_>> rightEn... | Same as above |
timefold-solver | github_2023 | java | 1,300 | TimefoldAI | zepfred | @@ -106,32 +102,27 @@ public final void insertRight(UniTuple<Right_> rightTuple) {
throw new IllegalStateException("Impossible state: the input for the tuple (" + rightTuple
+ ") was already added in the tupleStore.");
}
- ElementAwareListEntry<UniTuple<Right_>> rightEn... | Same as above |
timefold-solver | github_2023 | java | 1,300 | TimefoldAI | zepfred | @@ -40,19 +40,16 @@ public final void insertLeft(LeftTuple_ leftTuple) {
throw new IllegalStateException("Impossible state: the input for the tuple (" + leftTuple
+ ") was already added in the tupleStore.");
}
- ElementAwareListEntry<LeftTuple_> leftEntry = leftTupleLis... | That's what I meant in my comments in `AbstractUnindexedIfExistsNode` |
timefold-solver | github_2023 | java | 1,300 | TimefoldAI | zepfred | @@ -31,7 +30,7 @@ public IndexedIfExistsQuadNode(boolean shouldExist,
}
public IndexedIfExistsQuadNode(boolean shouldExist,
- QuadFunction<A, B, C, D, IndexProperties> mappingABCD, Function<E, IndexProperties> mappingE,
+ QuadMapping<A, B, C, D> mappingABCD, IndexerFactory.UniMapping<E... | ```suggestion
QuadMapping<A, B, C, D> mappingABCD, UniMapping<E> mappingE,
``` |
timefold-solver | github_2023 | java | 1,300 | TimefoldAI | zepfred | @@ -31,7 +30,7 @@ public IndexedIfExistsTriNode(boolean shouldExist,
}
public IndexedIfExistsTriNode(boolean shouldExist,
- TriFunction<A, B, C, IndexProperties> mappingABC, Function<D, IndexProperties> mappingD,
+ TriMapping<A, B, C> mappingABC, IndexerFactory.UniMapping<D> mappingD, | ```suggestion
TriMapping<A, B, C> mappingABC, UniMapping<D> mappingD,
``` |
timefold-solver | github_2023 | java | 1,300 | TimefoldAI | zepfred | @@ -72,8 +93,13 @@ public void remove(ElementAwareListEntry<T> entry) {
} else {
entry.next.previous = entry.previous;
}
+ entry.list = null;
entry.previous = null;
entry.next = null;
+ if (availableBlankEntry == null) { // Entry will be reused. | Nice! |
timefold-solver | github_2023 | others | 1,269 | TimefoldAI | lee-carlon | @@ -98,6 +98,25 @@ The solution instance given to the `solve(Solution)` method does not need to be
It can be partially or fully initialized, which is often the case in xref:responding-to-change/responding-to-change.adoc[repeated planning].
====
+[#multithreadedSolving]
+=== Multi-threaded solving
+
+There are sever... | ```suggestion
** The xref:using-timefold-solver/running-the-solver.adoc#solverManager[`SolverManager`] can help with this.
```
|
timefold-solver | github_2023 | others | 1,269 | TimefoldAI | lee-carlon | @@ -262,7 +281,8 @@ Even `debug` logging can slow down performance considerably for fast stepping al
(such as Late Acceptance and Simulated Annealing),
but not for slow stepping algorithms (such as Tabu Search).
-Both cause congestion in xref:enterprise-edition/enterprise-edition.adoc#multithreadedSolving[multi-thr... | ```suggestion
Both trace logging and debug logging cause congestion in xref:using-timefold-solver/running-the.solver.adoc#multithreadedSolving[multi-threaded solving] with most appenders,
``` |
timefold-solver | github_2023 | java | 1,253 | TimefoldAI | triceo | @@ -210,6 +212,7 @@ public class SolverConfig extends AbstractConfig<SolverConfig> {
// Warning: all fields are null (and not defaulted) because they can be inherited
// and also because the input config file should match the output config file
+ protected List<PreviewFeature> enablePreviewFeatureList = ... | Shouldn't this be an `EnumSet`? |
timefold-solver | github_2023 | java | 1,253 | TimefoldAI | triceo | @@ -60,6 +61,7 @@
*/
@XmlRootElement(name = SolverConfig.XML_ELEMENT_NAME)
@XmlType(name = SolverConfig.XML_TYPE_NAME, propOrder = {
+ "enablePreviewFeatureList", | I'd drop the `list` - or do we have a precedent for that anywhere else in the config? |
timefold-solver | github_2023 | java | 1,253 | TimefoldAI | triceo | @@ -432,6 +443,14 @@ public void setMonitoringConfig(@Nullable MonitoringConfig monitoringConfig) {
// With methods
// ************************************************************************
+ public @NonNull SolverConfig withPreviewFeature(@NonNull PreviewFeature previewFeature) { | I'd consider making this a vararg, and override the list every time.
If nothing is provided, nothing is enabled.
If something is provided, then that's what's enabled. |
timefold-solver | github_2023 | java | 1,253 | TimefoldAI | triceo | @@ -25,6 +27,7 @@
public class HeuristicConfigPolicy<Solution_> {
+ private final List<PreviewFeature> previewFeatureList; | `EnumSet` will work better for this. |
timefold-solver | github_2023 | java | 1,253 | TimefoldAI | triceo | @@ -0,0 +1,95 @@
+package ai.timefold.solver.core.impl.localsearch.decider.acceptor.lateacceptance;
+
+import ai.timefold.solver.core.api.score.Score;
+import ai.timefold.solver.core.impl.localsearch.scope.LocalSearchMoveScope;
+import ai.timefold.solver.core.impl.localsearch.scope.LocalSearchPhaseScope;
+import ai.tim... | Do we need this? It's a shorthand for something already very short.
Also, wouldn't you be able to get rid of the cast, if you do it like so?
private <Score_ extends Score<Score_>> int compare(Score_ first, Score_ second) { |
timefold-solver | github_2023 | java | 1,253 | TimefoldAI | triceo | @@ -0,0 +1,95 @@
+package ai.timefold.solver.core.impl.localsearch.decider.acceptor.lateacceptance;
+
+import ai.timefold.solver.core.api.score.Score;
+import ai.timefold.solver.core.impl.localsearch.scope.LocalSearchMoveScope;
+import ai.timefold.solver.core.impl.localsearch.scope.LocalSearchPhaseScope;
+import ai.tim... | Personally, I'd refactor this to something with meaning - such as:
var lateScoreWorse = compare(score, lateWorse) > 0; |
timefold-solver | github_2023 | java | 1,253 | TimefoldAI | triceo | @@ -0,0 +1,95 @@
+package ai.timefold.solver.core.impl.localsearch.decider.acceptor.lateacceptance;
+
+import ai.timefold.solver.core.api.score.Score;
+import ai.timefold.solver.core.impl.localsearch.scope.LocalSearchMoveScope;
+import ai.timefold.solver.core.impl.localsearch.scope.LocalSearchPhaseScope;
+import ai.tim... | Do we need to extend this? IMO it's different enough to stand on its own.
There's not so much code to share anyway. |
timefold-solver | github_2023 | java | 1,253 | TimefoldAI | triceo | @@ -15,9 +15,8 @@ public static HeuristicConfigPolicy<TestdataSolution> buildHeuristicConfigPolicy
public static <Solution_> HeuristicConfigPolicy<Solution_>
buildHeuristicConfigPolicy(SolutionDescriptor<Solution_> solutionDescriptor) {
- return new HeuristicConfigPolicy.Builder<>(Environment... | Isn't the point of a builder to not have these crazy constructors? |
timefold-solver | github_2023 | others | 1,253 | TimefoldAI | triceo | @@ -507,6 +507,50 @@ Use a lower tabu size than in a pure Tabu Search configuration.
</localSearch>
----
+[#diversifiedLateAcceptance]
+== Diversified Late acceptance
+
+
+[#diversifiedLateAcceptanceAlgorithm]
+=== Algorithm description
+
+Diversified Late Acceptance is similar to Late Acceptance,
+but it offers ... | This sentence is a bit complicated. I'd break it down into bullet points - updated if X, or if Y. |
timefold-solver | github_2023 | others | 1,253 | TimefoldAI | triceo | @@ -507,6 +507,50 @@ Use a lower tabu size than in a pure Tabu Search configuration.
</localSearch>
----
+[#diversifiedLateAcceptance]
+== Diversified Late acceptance
+
+
+[#diversifiedLateAcceptanceAlgorithm]
+=== Algorithm description
+
+Diversified Late Acceptance is similar to Late Acceptance,
+but it offers ... | You should also show the preview configuration. |
timefold-solver | github_2023 | others | 1,253 | TimefoldAI | triceo | @@ -507,6 +507,50 @@ Use a lower tabu size than in a pure Tabu Search configuration.
</localSearch>
----
+[#diversifiedLateAcceptance]
+== Diversified Late acceptance
+ | I'd add a note that it's a preview feature, with a link here:
https://docs.timefold.ai/timefold-solver/latest/upgrading-timefold-solver/backwards-compatibility#previewFeatures |
timefold-solver | github_2023 | others | 1,253 | TimefoldAI | triceo | @@ -317,6 +317,9 @@
<xs:sequence>
+ <xs:element maxOccurs="unbounded" minOccurs="0" name="enablePreviewFeatureList" nillable="true" type="tns:previewFeature"/> | If I read this correctly, if there were more than one preview feature, this would look like this:
<enablePreviewFeatureList>FEATURE_A</>
<enablePreviewFeatureList>FEATURE_B</>
Then _for sure_ this shouldn't have the `list` suffix. |
timefold-solver | github_2023 | java | 1,253 | TimefoldAI | triceo | @@ -198,20 +217,31 @@ public ThreadFactory buildThreadFactory(ChildThreadType childThreadType) {
}
}
+ public void ensurePreviewFeature(PreviewFeature previewFeature) {
+ if (previewFeatureList == null || !previewFeatureList.contains(previewFeature)) {
+ throw new IllegalStateExcept... | Tag needs fixing. |
timefold-solver | github_2023 | others | 1,253 | TimefoldAI | triceo | @@ -507,6 +507,63 @@ Use a lower tabu size than in a pure Tabu Search configuration.
</localSearch>
----
+[#diversifiedLateAcceptance]
+== Diversified Late acceptance
+
+
+[#diversifiedLateAcceptanceAlgorithm]
+=== Algorithm description
+
+Diversified Late Acceptance is similar to Late Acceptance,
+but it offers ... | ```suggestion
Diversified Late Acceptance was first proposed in https://arxiv.org/pdf/1806.09328[Diversified Late Acceptance Search by M. Namazi, C. Sanderson, M. A. H. Newton, M. M. A. Polash, and A. Sattar]
``` |
timefold-solver | github_2023 | java | 1,253 | TimefoldAI | triceo | @@ -0,0 +1,113 @@
+package ai.timefold.solver.core.impl.localsearch.decider.acceptor.lateacceptance;
+
+import java.util.Arrays;
+
+import ai.timefold.solver.core.api.score.Score;
+import ai.timefold.solver.core.impl.localsearch.decider.acceptor.AbstractAcceptor;
+import ai.timefold.solver.core.impl.localsearch.scope.L... | Please declare variables closer to where you need them, you decrease the size of the context readers need to keep in their heads.
This particular variable is only needed on line 63. |
timefold-solver | github_2023 | java | 1,253 | TimefoldAI | triceo | @@ -0,0 +1,113 @@
+package ai.timefold.solver.core.impl.localsearch.decider.acceptor.lateacceptance;
+
+import java.util.Arrays;
+
+import ai.timefold.solver.core.api.score.Score;
+import ai.timefold.solver.core.impl.localsearch.decider.acceptor.AbstractAcceptor;
+import ai.timefold.solver.core.impl.localsearch.scope.L... | The comparison is already made on line 63. Please reuse. |
timefold-solver | github_2023 | java | 1,253 | TimefoldAI | triceo | @@ -0,0 +1,113 @@
+package ai.timefold.solver.core.impl.localsearch.decider.acceptor.lateacceptance;
+
+import java.util.Arrays;
+
+import ai.timefold.solver.core.api.score.Score;
+import ai.timefold.solver.core.impl.localsearch.decider.acceptor.AbstractAcceptor;
+import ai.timefold.solver.core.impl.localsearch.scope.L... | Please reuse the comparison. This is called relatively frequently, it needs to be efficient. |
timefold-solver | github_2023 | java | 1,237 | TimefoldAI | triceo | @@ -0,0 +1,34 @@
+package ai.timefold.solver.core.impl.domain.solution.cloner.gizmo;
+
+import static org.assertj.core.api.Assertions.assertThat;
+
+import java.util.List;
+import java.util.Map;
+
+import ai.timefold.solver.core.impl.testdata.domain.clone.deepcloning.AnnotatedTestdataVariousTypes;
+import ai.timefold.s... | If my memory serves, the cloning tests are usually written in a way that the same bug can be tested for both reflection-based and Gizmo-based cloners. It is important that we maintain functional equivalence between the two implementations.
Please find the cloner test which implements this duality, and preferrably ad... |
timefold-solver | github_2023 | java | 1,228 | TimefoldAI | Christopher-Chianelli | @@ -0,0 +1,291 @@
+package ai.timefold.solver.core.impl.domain.variable;
+
+import java.util.List;
+import java.util.Map;
+import java.util.Objects;
+
+import ai.timefold.solver.core.impl.domain.variable.descriptor.ListVariableDescriptor;
+import ai.timefold.solver.core.impl.domain.variable.index.IndexShadowVariableDes... | `getInverseSingleton` and `getIndex` might do a map lookup on the same value. Might be worth it to do a single map lookup here if requiresLocationMap is true. |
timefold-solver | github_2023 | others | 1,196 | TimefoldAI | triceo | @@ -587,6 +587,9 @@
<xs:element minOccurs="0" name="moveCountLimit" type="xs:long"/>
+ <xs:element minOccurs="0" name="unimprovedBestSolutionLimit" type="xs:double"/> | We need a better name for this one - one that actually indicated what is going to happen.
- `exhaustionDetection` (we already use "exhaust" for exhaustive search, so maybe not)
- `depletionDetection`
- `flatLineDetection` (I like it because it is simple; I don't like it because it is too un-scientific)
- ... ? |
timefold-solver | github_2023 | java | 1,196 | TimefoldAI | triceo | @@ -0,0 +1,178 @@
+package ai.timefold.solver.core.impl.solver.termination;
+
+import ai.timefold.solver.core.api.score.Score;
+import ai.timefold.solver.core.impl.phase.scope.AbstractPhaseScope;
+import ai.timefold.solver.core.impl.phase.scope.AbstractStepScope;
+import ai.timefold.solver.core.impl.solver.scope.Solver... | Needs a unit in the name. |
timefold-solver | github_2023 | java | 1,196 | TimefoldAI | triceo | @@ -0,0 +1,178 @@
+package ai.timefold.solver.core.impl.solver.termination;
+
+import ai.timefold.solver.core.api.score.Score;
+import ai.timefold.solver.core.impl.phase.scope.AbstractPhaseScope;
+import ai.timefold.solver.core.impl.phase.scope.AbstractStepScope;
+import ai.timefold.solver.core.impl.solver.scope.Solver... | Needs a better name, describing the functionality.
This also needs to show up in the docs and in the images, as it is one of the key parameters to understand the algorithm.
The charts need to clearly mark this point. |
timefold-solver | github_2023 | java | 1,196 | TimefoldAI | triceo | @@ -0,0 +1,178 @@
+package ai.timefold.solver.core.impl.solver.termination;
+
+import ai.timefold.solver.core.api.score.Score;
+import ai.timefold.solver.core.impl.phase.scope.AbstractPhaseScope;
+import ai.timefold.solver.core.impl.phase.scope.AbstractStepScope;
+import ai.timefold.solver.core.impl.solver.scope.Solver... | Based on the current description, I do not understand what this does.
Also, same comment as above. |
timefold-solver | github_2023 | java | 1,196 | TimefoldAI | triceo | @@ -0,0 +1,178 @@
+package ai.timefold.solver.core.impl.solver.termination;
+
+import ai.timefold.solver.core.api.score.Score;
+import ai.timefold.solver.core.impl.phase.scope.AbstractPhaseScope;
+import ai.timefold.solver.core.impl.phase.scope.AbstractStepScope;
+import ai.timefold.solver.core.impl.solver.scope.Solver... | I understand why this is, but as a future improvement, we should think about ways of making this termination the default without the user having to configure anything.
I want this to eventually be the only termination the user will ever need.
This will require the termination to _somehow_ survive the CH phase. |
timefold-solver | github_2023 | others | 1,196 | TimefoldAI | triceo | @@ -565,6 +565,58 @@ Terminates as soon as a feasible solution has been discovered.
This `Termination` is usually combined with other terminations.
+[#unimprovedBestSolutionTermination]
+==== `UnimprovedBestSolutionTermination`
+
+`UnimprovedBestSolutionTermination` terminates when the solver cannot improve the be... | Are we using time? I thought we were using move counts. |
timefold-solver | github_2023 | others | 1,196 | TimefoldAI | triceo | @@ -565,6 +565,58 @@ Terminates as soon as a feasible solution has been discovered.
This `Termination` is usually combined with other terminations.
+[#unimprovedBestSolutionTermination]
+==== `UnimprovedBestSolutionTermination`
+
+`UnimprovedBestSolutionTermination` terminates when the solver cannot improve the be... | Isn't this a bit confusing?
Why not change the definition and instead of basing it on estimated total time, it would be based on the time it spent improving?
The limit would be `1.0` in that case, and the docs would say eg. "the last best score was achieved at 10 seconds, and the solver will terminate in another 10... |
timefold-solver | github_2023 | others | 1,196 | TimefoldAI | triceo | @@ -565,6 +565,58 @@ Terminates as soon as a feasible solution has been discovered.
This `Termination` is usually combined with other terminations.
+[#unimprovedBestSolutionTermination]
+==== `UnimprovedBestSolutionTermination`
+
+`UnimprovedBestSolutionTermination` terminates when the solver cannot improve the be... | We should discuss this interval, give it a name, and write the pictures in such a way that they show this interval. |
timefold-solver | github_2023 | others | 1,196 | TimefoldAI | triceo | @@ -565,6 +565,58 @@ Terminates as soon as a feasible solution has been discovered.
This `Termination` is usually combined with other terminations.
+[#unimprovedBestSolutionTermination]
+==== `UnimprovedBestSolutionTermination`
+
+`UnimprovedBestSolutionTermination` terminates when the solver cannot improve the be... | We keep talking about curves here, but maybe we should talk about the last point of improvement. (Which is also a concept which needs a good name, and needs to be shown in the graph.) |
timefold-solver | github_2023 | others | 1,196 | TimefoldAI | triceo | @@ -565,6 +565,58 @@ Terminates as soon as a feasible solution has been discovered.
This `Termination` is usually combined with other terminations.
+[#unimprovedBestSolutionTermination]
+==== `UnimprovedBestSolutionTermination`
+
+`UnimprovedBestSolutionTermination` terminates when the solver cannot improve the be... | Please explain why, and with which. |
timefold-solver | github_2023 | others | 1,229 | TimefoldAI | lee-carlon | @@ -10,6 +10,8 @@ image::quickstart/vehicle-routing/vehicleRoutingClassDiagramPure.png[]
== Location
The `Location` class is used to represent the destination for deliveries or the home location for vehicles.
+The `drivingTimeSeconds` map contains the time required to driving from `this` location to any other locat... | ```suggestion
The `drivingTimeSeconds` map contains the time required to drive from `this` location to any other location.
``` |
timefold-solver | github_2023 | others | 1,229 | TimefoldAI | lee-carlon | @@ -306,12 +274,15 @@ The `Visit` class represents a delivery that needs to be made by vehicles.
A visit includes a destination location, a delivery time window represented by `[minStartTime, maxEndTime]`,
a demand that needs to be fulfilled by the vehicle, and a service duration time.
+The `Visit` class has an `@P... | ```suggestion
The `Visit` class has an `@PlanningEntity` annotation
but no genuine variables and is called a https://timefold.ai/docs/timefold-solver/latest/using-timefold-solver/modeling-planning-problems#shadowVariable[shadow entity].
``` |
timefold-solver | github_2023 | others | 1,229 | TimefoldAI | lee-carlon | @@ -608,193 +505,27 @@ class Visit {
--
====
-Some methods are annotated with `@InverseRelationShadowVariable`, `@PreviousElementShadowVariable`,
-`@NextElementShadowVariable`, and `@ShadowVariable`.
+Some methods are annotated with `@InverseRelationShadowVariable`, `@PreviousElementShadowVariable` and `@CascadingU... | ```suggestion
This change is automatically propagated to the subsequent visits and stops when the `arrivalTime` value hasn't changed or when it's reached the end of the chain of visit objects.
``` |
timefold-solver | github_2023 | others | 1,203 | TimefoldAI | triceo | @@ -64,9 +64,14 @@ To complete this guide, you need:
== The build file and the dependencies
-Use https://code.quarkus.io/[code.quarkus.io] to generate an application
+Use https://code.quarkus.io/?a=timefold-solver-quickstart&j=17&e=resteasy&e=resteasy-jackson&e=ai.timefold.solver%3Atimefold-solver-quarkus-jackson&... | ```suggestion
Use https://code.quarkus.io/?a=timefold-solver-quickstart&j=21&e=resteasy&e=resteasy-jackson&e=ai.timefold.solver%3Atimefold-solver-quarkus-jackson&e=ai.timefold.solver%3Atimefold-solver-quarkus[code.quarkus.io] to generate an application
```
Maybe we want to nudge people towards the latest LTS? |
timefold-solver | github_2023 | others | 1,201 | TimefoldAI | triceo | @@ -1,19 +1,19 @@
# This file is temporary, since for the time being, we need to build docs from the main branch.
# Remove when 1.16.0 is out, otherwise this file quickly becomes stale. | ```suggestion
# Remove when 1.17.0 is out, otherwise this file quickly becomes stale.
``` |
timefold-solver | github_2023 | java | 1,198 | TimefoldAI | zepfred | @@ -198,71 +199,65 @@ private EntitySelector<Solution_> applyFiltering(EntitySelector<Solution_> entit
}
protected void validateSorting(SelectionOrder resolvedSelectionOrder) {
- if ((config.getSorterManner() != null || config.getSorterComparatorClass() != null
+ var sorterManner = config.getS... | Let's create a variable for `config.getSorterComparatorClass()` and `config.getSorterWeightFactoryClass()`. |
timefold-solver | github_2023 | java | 1,198 | TimefoldAI | zepfred | @@ -278,7 +273,7 @@ protected EntitySelector<Solution_> applySorting(SelectionCacheType resolvedCach
} else {
throw new IllegalArgumentException("The entitySelectorConfig (" + config | Let's use `formatted` |
timefold-solver | github_2023 | java | 1,198 | TimefoldAI | zepfred | @@ -256,71 +257,64 @@ protected ValueSelector<Solution_> applyInitializedChainedValueFilter(HeuristicC
}
protected void validateSorting(SelectionOrder resolvedSelectionOrder) {
- if ((config.getSorterManner() != null || config.getSorterComparatorClass() != null
+ var sorterManner = config.getS... | Consider applying the same pattern used in multiple places: declare the variable and then check if it is null. |
timefold-solver | github_2023 | java | 1,198 | TimefoldAI | zepfred | @@ -198,71 +199,65 @@ private EntitySelector<Solution_> applyFiltering(EntitySelector<Solution_> entit
}
protected void validateSorting(SelectionOrder resolvedSelectionOrder) {
- if ((config.getSorterManner() != null || config.getSorterComparatorClass() != null
+ var sorterManner = config.getS... | Consider applying the same pattern used in multiple places: declare the variable and then check if it is null. |
timefold-solver | github_2023 | java | 1,198 | TimefoldAI | zepfred | @@ -336,7 +330,7 @@ protected ValueSelector<Solution_> applySorting(SelectionCacheType resolvedCache
} else {
throw new IllegalArgumentException("The valueSelectorConfig (" + config | Let's use `formatted` |
timefold-solver | github_2023 | java | 1,198 | TimefoldAI | zepfred | @@ -610,18 +610,16 @@ public String toString() {
@Override
public boolean equals(Object o) {
- if (this == o) {
+ if (this == o) | Do we want to remove the curly braces? |
timefold-solver | github_2023 | java | 1,197 | TimefoldAI | zepfred | @@ -111,15 +101,15 @@ protected MoveSelectorConfig<?> buildUnfoldedMoveSelectorConfig(HeuristicConfigP
+ " or use a changeMoveSelector instead.");
}
if (!onlyDestinationVariableDescriptor.isListVariable()) {
- throw new IllegalArgumentException("The dest... | Let's use `formatted`. |
timefold-solver | github_2023 | java | 1,197 | TimefoldAI | zepfred | @@ -111,15 +101,15 @@ protected MoveSelectorConfig<?> buildUnfoldedMoveSelectorConfig(HeuristicConfigP
+ " or use a changeMoveSelector instead.");
}
if (!onlyDestinationVariableDescriptor.isListVariable()) {
- throw new IllegalArgumentException("The dest... | Let's use `formatted`. |
timefold-solver | github_2023 | java | 1,197 | TimefoldAI | zepfred | @@ -146,61 +145,57 @@ protected ValueSelector<Solution_> buildMimicReplaying(HeuristicConfigPolicy<Sol
|| config.getSorterClass() != null
|| config.getProbabilityWeightFactoryClass() != null
|| config.getSelectedCountLimit() != null) {
- throw new IllegalArg... | It can be merged with `ORIGINAL`. |
timefold-solver | github_2023 | java | 1,197 | TimefoldAI | zepfred | @@ -47,10 +47,7 @@ public EasyScoreCalculator<Solution_, Score_> getEasyScoreCalculator() {
public Score_ calculateScore() {
variableListenerSupport.assertNotificationQueuesAreEmpty();
Score_ score = easyScoreCalculator.calculateScore(workingSolution);
- if (score == null) {
- t... | Let's use `formatted`. |
timefold-solver | github_2023 | java | 1,197 | TimefoldAI | zepfred | @@ -86,12 +86,11 @@ public <A> void assertValidFromType(Class<A> fromType) {
}
public List<Constraint_> buildConstraints(ConstraintProvider constraintProvider) {
- Constraint[] constraints = constraintProvider.defineConstraints(this);
- if (constraints == null) {
- throw new Illegal... | Let's use `formatted`. |
timefold-solver | github_2023 | java | 1,197 | TimefoldAI | zepfred | @@ -57,18 +57,20 @@ public <Score_ extends Score<Score_>> Termination<Solution_> buildTermination(
Arrays.fill(timeGradientWeightNumbers, 0.50); // Number pulled out of thin air
terminationList.add(new BestScoreTermination<>(scoreDefinition, bestScoreLimit_, timeGradientWeightNumbers));
... | Why are we including the backslash in this message? |
timefold-solver | github_2023 | java | 1,197 | TimefoldAI | zepfred | @@ -18,7 +19,7 @@ public void serialize(ConstraintWeightOverrides<Score_> constraintWeightOverride
generator.writeStartObject();
for (var constraintName : constraintWeightOverrides.getKnownConstraintNames()) {
var weight = constraintWeightOverrides.getConstraintWeight(constraintName); | ```suggestion
var weight = Objects.requireNonNull(constraintWeightOverrides.getConstraintWeight(constraintName));
``` |
timefold-solver | github_2023 | java | 1,197 | TimefoldAI | zepfred | @@ -18,7 +19,7 @@ public void serialize(ConstraintWeightOverrides<Score_> constraintWeightOverride
generator.writeStartObject();
for (var constraintName : constraintWeightOverrides.getKnownConstraintNames()) {
var weight = constraintWeightOverrides.getConstraintWeight(constraintName);
- ... | ```suggestion
generator.writeStringField(constraintName, weight.toString());
``` |
timefold-solver | github_2023 | java | 1,197 | TimefoldAI | zepfred | @@ -238,18 +238,19 @@ private void loadSolverConfig(IncludeAbstractClassesEntityScanner entityScanner,
if (solverConfig.getSolutionClass() == null) {
solverConfig.setSolutionClass(entityScanner.findFirstSolutionClass());
}
- if (solverConfig.getEntityClassList() == null) {
+ ... | ```suggestion
var entityClassCount = solverEntityClassList.stream()
``` |
timefold-solver | github_2023 | java | 1,160 | TimefoldAI | triceo | @@ -219,226 +219,233 @@ public final class ConstraintCollectors {
* The default result of the collector (e.g. when never called) is {@code 0}.
*
* @param <A> type of the matched fact
- * @return never null
*/
- public static <A> UniConstraintCollector<A, ?, Integer> sum(ToIntFunction<? su... | Yes. There are overloads for that method which do not require these arguments - so when an argument is actually present, it is required unless Javadoc says otherwise. |
timefold-solver | github_2023 | java | 1,160 | TimefoldAI | triceo | @@ -543,168 +509,172 @@ public void setThreadFactoryClass(Class<? extends ThreadFactory> threadFactoryCl
*
* @return null, a number or {@value #PARALLEL_BENCHMARK_COUNT_AUTO}.
*/
- public String getParallelBenchmarkCount() {
+ public @Nullable String getParallelBenchmarkCount() {
return... | I'm afraid this pattern is not correct. :-(
- Getters in configs have to be `Nullable`, because the fields may hold `null`. `null` here means that the user chose not to specify. (Why else would we choose `Long` instead of `long`, avoiding reference types altogether?)
- Setters likewise have to be able to accept `null`... |
timefold-solver | github_2023 | java | 1,160 | TimefoldAI | triceo | @@ -90,12 +92,15 @@ public enum SolverMetric {
this.isConstraintMatchBased = isConstraintMatchBased;
}
- public String getMeterId() {
+ public @NonNull String getMeterId() {
return meterId;
}
- public static void registerScoreMetrics(SolverMetric metric, Tags tags, ScoreDefiniti... | Not our best API design here. :-(
You know Kotlin better than I do. Would these annotations on this crazy type actually help? I feel like they would, but I will defer to your judgment here. |
timefold-solver | github_2023 | java | 1,160 | TimefoldAI | triceo | @@ -236,7 +246,8 @@ public NearbySelectionConfig withBetaDistributionBeta(Double betaDistributionBet
// Builder methods
// ************************************************************************
- public void validateNearby(SelectionCacheType resolvedCacheType, SelectionOrder resolvedSelectionOrder) {
+... | Non-null OK for both. |
timefold-solver | github_2023 | java | 1,160 | TimefoldAI | triceo | @@ -325,7 +329,8 @@ public String toString() {
return getClass().getSimpleName() + "(" + entityClass + ")";
}
- public static <Solution_> boolean hasSorter(EntitySorterManner entitySorterManner,
+ // TODO: entityDescriptor @NonNull?
+ public static <Solution_> boolean hasSorter(@NonNull EntityS... | Non-null OK for both. |
timefold-solver | github_2023 | java | 1,160 | TimefoldAI | triceo | @@ -234,28 +237,26 @@ public Config_ withFixedProbabilityWeight(Double fixedProbabilityWeight) {
* Gather a list of all descendant {@link MoveSelectorConfig}s
* except for {@link UnionMoveSelectorConfig} and {@link CartesianProductMoveSelectorConfig}.
*
- * @param leafMoveSelectorConfigList not nu... | Yes, it makes sense. I would not expect null inside of this collection. |
timefold-solver | github_2023 | java | 1,160 | TimefoldAI | triceo | @@ -69,213 +72,215 @@ public class ValueSelectorConfig extends SelectorConfig<ValueSelectorConfig> {
public ValueSelectorConfig() {
}
- public ValueSelectorConfig(String variableName) {
+ // TODO: @NonNull ok here? | I went over the code and everywhere this is called, it is actually given a value.
If there is something in the docs about this, then first of all I don't really understand why we decided to document this, but more importantly, it should just be fixed to say that this is not nullable. |
timefold-solver | github_2023 | java | 1,160 | TimefoldAI | triceo | @@ -275,112 +278,116 @@ public TerminationConfig withTerminationClass(Class<? extends Termination> termi
return this;
}
- public TerminationConfig withTerminationCompositionStyle(TerminationCompositionStyle terminationCompositionStyle) {
+ public @NonNull TerminationConfig
+ withTermina... | This is very unclear. Erring on the side of caution, I'd say nullable. |
timefold-solver | github_2023 | java | 1,160 | TimefoldAI | triceo | @@ -430,7 +437,8 @@ public void shortenTimeMillisSpentLimit(long timeMillisSpentLimit) {
}
}
- public void overwriteUnimprovedSpentLimit(Duration unimprovedSpentLimit) {
+ // TODO @NonNull ok here?
+ public void overwriteUnimprovedSpentLimit(@NonNull Duration unimprovedSpentLimit) { | Dtto. |
timefold-solver | github_2023 | java | 1,160 | TimefoldAI | triceo | @@ -268,10 +261,7 @@ public static SolverConfig createFromXmlReader(Reader reader, ClassLoader classL
public SolverConfig() {
}
- /**
- * @param classLoader sometimes null
- */
- public SolverConfig(ClassLoader classLoader) {
+ public SolverConfig(@Nullable ClassLoader classLoader) { | People can create their own instances of this class, and build the solver config programmatically, as opposed to using XML. Therefore I'd say that nullable is correct here. |
timefold-solver | github_2023 | java | 1,160 | TimefoldAI | triceo | @@ -58,7 +61,8 @@ public class ConfigUtils {
* @param <T> the new instance type
* @return new instance of clazz
*/
- public static <T> T newInstance(Object configBean, String propertyName, Class<T> clazz) {
+ // TODO: propertyName, clazz
+ public static <T> @NonNull T newInstance(@Nullable Ob... | I'd say so. |
timefold-solver | github_2023 | java | 1,160 | TimefoldAI | triceo | @@ -87,8 +91,9 @@ public static <T> T newInstance(Supplier<String> ownerDescriptor, String propert
}
}
- public static void applyCustomProperties(Object bean, String beanClassPropertyName,
- Map<String, String> customProperties, String customPropertiesPropertyName) {
+ // TODO: param cu... | Judgment call. I say no. |
timefold-solver | github_2023 | java | 1,160 | TimefoldAI | triceo | @@ -295,7 +304,8 @@ public static int ceilDivide(int dividend, int divisor) {
return (dividend / divisor) + correction;
}
- public static int resolvePoolSize(String propertyName, String value, String... magicValues) {
+ // TODO what to make of magicValues?
+ public static int resolvePoolSize(St... | The user would have to specifically cast the `null` to either `String[]` or `String`, in order for this to work at all. For that reason, I say non-null.
Also, shouldn't `propertyName` be non-null as well? I'd say so. |
timefold-solver | github_2023 | java | 1,160 | TimefoldAI | triceo | @@ -384,6 +392,7 @@ public static List<Member> getAllMembers(Class<?> baseClass, Class<? extends Ann
return memberStream.distinct().sorted(alphabeticMemberComparator).collect(Collectors.toList());
}
+ // TODO
@SafeVarargs
public static Class<? extends Annotation> extractAnnotationClass(Memb... | Agree. |
timefold-solver | github_2023 | java | 1,160 | TimefoldAI | triceo | @@ -415,6 +425,7 @@ Maybe the member (%s) should return a parameterized %s."""
memberName, type, memberName, type.getSimpleName())));
}
+ // TODO
public static Optional<Class<?>> extractGenericTypeParameter(String parentClassConcept, Class<?> parentClass, Class<?> type,
... | Agree. |
timefold-solver | github_2023 | java | 1,160 | TimefoldAI | triceo | @@ -11,17 +14,19 @@ public interface MultiConstraintAssertion {
* @param score total score calculated for the given set of facts
* @throws AssertionError when the expected score does not match the calculated score
*/
- default void scores(Score<?> score) {
+ // TODO: @NonNull score sensible?
+ ... | Yes. This is an assertion - since it's not possible for score returned by the solver to ever be null, I'd say non-null here makes total sense. |
timefold-solver | github_2023 | java | 1,160 | TimefoldAI | triceo | @@ -11,17 +14,19 @@ public interface MultiConstraintAssertion {
* @param score total score calculated for the given set of facts
* @throws AssertionError when the expected score does not match the calculated score
*/
- default void scores(Score<?> score) {
+ // TODO: @NonNull score sensible?
+ ... | Dtto. |
timefold-solver | github_2023 | java | 1,160 | TimefoldAI | triceo | @@ -1,21 +1,22 @@
package ai.timefold.solver.test.api.score.stream;
+import org.jspecify.annotations.NonNull;
+
public interface MultiConstraintVerification<Solution_> {
/**
* As defined by {@link SingleConstraintVerification#given(Object...)}.
*
- * @param facts never null, at least one
- ... | Agree. For varargs, I think they generally should be non-null. (See my explanation above.) |
timefold-solver | github_2023 | java | 1,160 | TimefoldAI | triceo | @@ -90,10 +93,11 @@ public enum SolverMetric {
this.isConstraintMatchBased = isConstraintMatchBased;
}
- public String getMeterId() {
+ public @NonNull String getMeterId() {
return meterId;
}
+ @NullMarked
public static void registerScoreMetrics(SolverMetric metric, Tags ta... | I'd leave it for now.
I'll have some downtime before the release, I'll go back to my notes and review some of the places where maybe I want to think about it a bit more. This will be one of them. |
timefold-solver | github_2023 | java | 1,160 | TimefoldAI | triceo | @@ -527,9 +518,9 @@ public SolverConfig withClassLoader(ClassLoader classLoader) {
* As defined by {@link ScoreDirectorFactoryConfig#withEasyScoreCalculatorClass(Class)}, but returns this.
*
* @param easyScoreCalculatorClass sometimes null
- * @return this, never null
*/
- public SolverCo... | Damn, I keep missing questions. :-( The Github UX for this needs to improve.
I'd go with non-null - let's make a distinction between the getters and the withers. Brief search through the code indicates we do not actually pass null there anywhere. |
timefold-solver | github_2023 | java | 1,185 | TimefoldAI | zepfred | @@ -94,14 +95,14 @@ public void setTrackingWorkingSolution(boolean trackingWorkingSolution) {
@Override
public InnerScoreDirector<Solution_, Score_> buildScoreDirector() {
- return buildScoreDirector(true, true);
+ return buildScoreDirector(false, ConstraintMatchPolicy.DISABLED); | Should we set `ENABLED_WITHOUT_JUSTIFICATIONS` or `ENABLED` instead? |
timefold-solver | github_2023 | java | 1,185 | TimefoldAI | zepfred | @@ -29,56 +30,53 @@ public interface InnerScoreDirectorFactory<Solution_, Score_ extends Score<Score
InnerScoreDirector<Solution_, Score_> buildScoreDirector(); | Is there documentation for the default value of `ConstraintMatchPolicy` used in `buildScoreDirector()`? |
timefold-solver | github_2023 | java | 1,185 | TimefoldAI | zepfred | @@ -28,9 +29,9 @@ public final class EasyScoreDirector<Solution_, Score_ extends Score<Score_>>
private final EasyScoreCalculator<Solution_, Score_> easyScoreCalculator;
public EasyScoreDirector(EasyScoreDirectorFactory<Solution_, Score_> scoreDirectorFactory,
- boolean lookUpEnabled, boolean con... | It seems that changing the `ConstraintMatchPolicy` is no longer possible. Should it be allowed? |
timefold-solver | github_2023 | java | 1,009 | TimefoldAI | triceo | @@ -13,9 +15,10 @@ public interface PinningFilter<Solution_, Entity_> {
/**
* @param solution working solution to which the entity belongs
- * @param entity never null, a {@link PlanningEntity}
+ * @param entity a {@link PlanningEntity}
* @return true if the entity it is pinned, false if the ... | Agree. |
timefold-solver | github_2023 | java | 1,009 | TimefoldAI | triceo | @@ -46,6 +46,7 @@
*
* @return {@link NullPinningFilter} when it is null (workaround for annotation limitation)
*/
+ // TODO feels like this could be annotated with @NonNull | As we've agreed annotations wouldn't be treated, let's remove these TODOs. |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.