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 | others | 867 | TimefoldAI | zepfred | @@ -75,9 +75,24 @@ $ git clone {quickstarts-clone-url}
To complete this guide, you need:
+[tabs]
+====
+Java / Kotlin::
++
+--
* https://adoptopenjdk.net/[JDK] {java-version}+ with `JAVA_HOME` configured appropriately
* https://maven.apache.org/download.html[Apache Maven] {maven-version}+ or https://gradle.org/i... | ```suggestion
* An IDE, such as https://www.jetbrains.com/pycharm/[IntelliJ PyCharm], https://code.visualstudio.com[VSCode] or https://www.eclipse.org[Eclipse]
``` |
timefold-solver | github_2023 | others | 841 | TimefoldAI | zepfred | @@ -0,0 +1,200 @@
+[#loadBalancingAndFairness]
+= Load balancing and fairness
+:doctype: book
+:sectnums:
+:icons: font
+
+Load balancing is a common constraint for many Timefold Solver use cases.
+Especially when scheduling employees, the workload needs to be spread out fairly;
+there may even be legal requirements to... | ```suggestion
== What is fair?
``` |
timefold-solver | github_2023 | java | 841 | TimefoldAI | Christopher-Chianelli | @@ -0,0 +1,62 @@
+package ai.timefold.solver.core.impl.score.stream.collector;
+
+import java.math.BigDecimal;
+import java.util.LinkedHashMap;
+import java.util.Map;
+import java.util.Objects;
+
+public final class LoadBalanceCalculator implements ObjectCalculator<Object, BigDecimal> { | So, if I am reading this correctly, this does `sqrt(sum(count^2))`?
This has the consequence that a "fair" schedule result increases as the number of shifts increases:
Assume two employees, and a perfectly fair schedule, a perfectly fair schedule that is off by one, and a completely unfair schedule. Then these wil... |
timefold-solver | github_2023 | java | 841 | TimefoldAI | Christopher-Chianelli | @@ -0,0 +1,62 @@
+package ai.timefold.solver.core.impl.score.stream.collector;
+
+import java.math.BigDecimal;
+import java.util.LinkedHashMap;
+import java.util.Map;
+import java.util.Objects;
+
+public final class LoadBalanceCalculator implements ObjectCalculator<Object, BigDecimal> {
+
+ private final Map<Object,... | How does this handle "load balance by minutes worked"? |
timefold-solver | github_2023 | java | 831 | TimefoldAI | triceo | @@ -86,10 +86,6 @@ public final void retractLeft(LeftTuple_ tuple) {
return;
}
TupleState state = outTuple.state;
- if (!state.isActive()) {
- throw new IllegalStateException("Impossible state: The tuple (" + outTuple.state + ") in node (" + this
- + "... | Let's keep the condition, but return from it.
Keep a comment explaining the situation where this happens.
Dtto. below. |
timefold-solver | github_2023 | java | 830 | TimefoldAI | zepfred | @@ -73,11 +71,11 @@ public Result_ result() {
if (propertyToItemCountMap.isEmpty()) {
return null;
}
- return isMin ? getFirstKey(propertyToItemCountMap.firstEntry().getValue())
- : getFirstKey(propertyToItemCountMap.lastEntry().getValue());
+ var itemCount = ... | Nice! |
timefold-solver | github_2023 | java | 830 | TimefoldAI | zepfred | @@ -1,22 +1,21 @@
package ai.timefold.solver.core.impl.score.stream.collector;
import java.util.Comparator;
-import java.util.LinkedHashMap;
-import java.util.Map;
import java.util.NavigableMap;
import java.util.TreeMap;
import java.util.function.Function;
import ai.timefold.solver.core.impl.util.ConstantLamb... | Do we have tests covering this class? |
timefold-solver | github_2023 | others | 809 | TimefoldAI | triceo | @@ -140,6 +140,43 @@ public class Lesson {
----
+====
+
+'''
+
+=== Upgrade from 1.9.0 to 1.10.0 | This doesn't belong here, it's already above. |
timefold-solver | github_2023 | java | 800 | TimefoldAI | triceo | @@ -1955,6 +1957,263 @@ public static <A, ResultContainer_, Result_> UniConstraintCollector<A, ResultCon
return InnerQuadConstraintCollectors.toConsecutiveSequences(resultMap, indexMap);
}
+ // *****************************************************************
+ // concurrentUsage
+ // *********... | Looking at the example, shouldn't the `to` rather be exclusive?
Java APIs concerning ranges typically follow conventions `[min, max)`. |
timefold-solver | github_2023 | java | 800 | TimefoldAI | triceo | @@ -1,11 +1,15 @@
-package ai.timefold.solver.examples.common.experimental.api;
+package ai.timefold.solver.core.api.score.stream.common;
-public interface IntervalCluster<Interval_, Point_ extends Comparable<Point_>, Difference_ extends Comparable<Difference_>>
+public interface ConcurrentUsage<Interval_, Point_ ext... | The first method speak of overlap.
The other two methods speak of concurrent usage.
We should standardize this; personally, `minimumOverlap` is more self-explanatory to me. |
timefold-solver | github_2023 | java | 800 | TimefoldAI | triceo | @@ -0,0 +1,16 @@
+package ai.timefold.solver.core.api.score.stream.common;
+
+public interface ConcurrentUsageInfo<Interval_, Point_ extends Comparable<Point_>, Difference_ extends Comparable<Difference_>> {
+
+ /**
+ * @return never null, an iterable that iterates through the interval clusters
+ * c... | This, in my opinion, is another place where the new name "concurrent usage" doesn't really work. "get concurrent usages" sounds to me a bit like something a non-native speaker would produce.
Overlapping intervals probably wasn't ideal either. How about overlapping ranges? |
timefold-solver | github_2023 | java | 800 | TimefoldAI | triceo | @@ -0,0 +1,16 @@
+package ai.timefold.solver.core.api.score.stream.common;
+
+public interface ConcurrentUsageInfo<Interval_, Point_ extends Comparable<Point_>, Difference_ extends Comparable<Difference_>> {
+
+ /**
+ * @return never null, an iterable that iterates through the interval clusters
+ * c... | Just out of curiosity... can you think of a term for a "break" inbetween two ranges of numbers? I'm thinking maybe maths has a term for this. |
timefold-solver | github_2023 | java | 800 | TimefoldAI | triceo | @@ -11,21 +11,21 @@ public interface IntervalBreak<Interval_, Point_ extends Comparable<Point_>, Dif
/**
* @return never null, the interval cluster leading directly into this
*/
- IntervalCluster<Interval_, Point_, Difference_> getPreviousIntervalCluster();
+ ConcurrentUsage<Interval_, Point_, Di... | getPreviousRange? |
timefold-solver | github_2023 | java | 800 | TimefoldAI | triceo | @@ -11,21 +11,21 @@ public interface IntervalBreak<Interval_, Point_ extends Comparable<Point_>, Dif
/**
* @return never null, the interval cluster leading directly into this
*/
- IntervalCluster<Interval_, Point_, Difference_> getPreviousIntervalCluster();
+ ConcurrentUsage<Interval_, Point_, Di... | If we're changing the difference function to be `[start, end)`, we should consider changing this too. |
timefold-solver | github_2023 | java | 800 | TimefoldAI | triceo | @@ -0,0 +1,49 @@
+package ai.timefold.solver.core.impl.score.stream.collector.bi;
+
+import java.util.Objects;
+import java.util.function.BiFunction;
+import java.util.function.Function;
+import java.util.function.Supplier;
+
+import ai.timefold.solver.core.api.score.stream.common.ConcurrentUsageInfo;
+import ai.timefo... | Let's start learning the "new" equals...
return o instanceof ConcurrentUsageBiConstraintCollector<?, ?, ?, ?, ?> that
&& Objects.equals(startMap, that.startMap)
&& ...
People have started showing that the JVM doesn't really like the way everyone typically does equals. |
timefold-solver | github_2023 | java | 800 | TimefoldAI | triceo | @@ -1,24 +1,29 @@
-package ai.timefold.solver.examples.common.experimental.impl;
+package ai.timefold.solver.core.impl.score.stream.collector.connectedRanges; | I'd go for just `ranges` - we generally don't do camel case in package names. |
timefold-solver | github_2023 | java | 800 | TimefoldAI | triceo | @@ -1955,6 +1957,263 @@ public static <A, ResultContainer_, Result_> UniConstraintCollector<A, ResultCon
return InnerQuadConstraintCollectors.toConsecutiveSequences(resultMap, indexMap);
}
+ // *****************************************************************
+ // toConnectedRanges
+ // *******... | ```suggestion
toConnectedTemporalRanges(Function<A, PointType_> startMap, Function<A, PointType_> endMap) {
```
Reads better to me. |
timefold-solver | github_2023 | java | 800 | TimefoldAI | triceo | @@ -235,20 +239,39 @@ void removeInterval(Interval<Interval_, Point_> interval) {
}
@Override
- public Iterable<IntervalCluster<Interval_, Point_, Difference_>> getIntervalClusters() {
+ public Iterable<ConnectedRange<Interval_, Point_, Difference_>> getConnectedRanges() {
return (Iterable) c... | Please fix naming. Possibly in the entire PR; speaks of clusters, but there no longer is any such class. |
timefold-solver | github_2023 | java | 800 | TimefoldAI | triceo | @@ -0,0 +1,212 @@
+package ai.timefold.solver.core.impl.score.stream.collector.connected_ranges;
+
+import java.util.Iterator;
+import java.util.NavigableSet;
+import java.util.Objects;
+import java.util.function.BiFunction;
+
+import ai.timefold.solver.core.api.score.stream.common.ConnectedRange;
+
+final class Connec... | For the sake of bravity, I'd prefer
this.startSplitPoint = Objects.requireNonNull(start, "start"); |
timefold-solver | github_2023 | java | 800 | TimefoldAI | triceo | @@ -3,24 +3,24 @@
import ai.timefold.solver.core.api.score.stream.common.ConnectedRange;
import ai.timefold.solver.core.api.score.stream.common.RangeGap;
-final class RangeGapImpl<Interval_, Point_ extends Comparable<Point_>, Difference_ extends Comparable<Difference_>>
+final class RangeGapImpl<Range_, Point_ exte... | Still clusters throughout this file. |
timefold-solver | github_2023 | java | 786 | TimefoldAI | Christopher-Chianelli | @@ -81,17 +38,17 @@ public LookUpStrategyResolver(DescriptorPolicy descriptorPolicy, LookUpStrategyT
*/
public LookUpStrategy determineLookUpStrategy(Object object) {
return decisionCache.computeIfAbsent(object.getClass(), objectClass -> {
- if (objectClass.isEnum()) {
+ if (De... | I think value ranges that return arrays are rare, but probably not impossible. Arrays are mutable though, and may contain reference to mutable values (i.e. PlanningEntities). |
timefold-solver | github_2023 | java | 779 | TimefoldAI | zepfred | @@ -28,31 +29,44 @@
* @param <Solution_> the solution type, the class with the {@link PlanningSolution} annotation
*/
public class SolverScope<Solution_> {
- protected Set<SolverMetric> solverMetricSet;
- protected Tags monitoringTags;
- protected int startingSolverCount;
- protected Random workingRand... | It seems off to have a method before the variable definitions. I suggest to move it after the constructor. |
timefold-solver | github_2023 | others | 772 | TimefoldAI | rsynek | @@ -29,22 +29,24 @@ jobs:
# Clone timefold-quickstarts
# Need to check for stale repo, since Github is not aware of the build chain and therefore doesn't automate it.
- - name: Find the proper timefold-quickstarts repo and branch
- env:
- CHAIN_USER: ${{ github.actor }}
- C... | Perhaps:
```suggestion
- name: Checkout timefold-quickstarts (development) # Checkout the development branch if the PR branch does not exist
``` |
timefold-solver | github_2023 | java | 767 | TimefoldAI | zepfred | @@ -0,0 +1,180 @@
+package ai.timefold.solver.core.config.heuristic.selector.move;
+
+import java.util.Random;
+
+import ai.timefold.solver.core.config.heuristic.selector.common.nearby.NearbySelectionConfig;
+import ai.timefold.solver.core.config.heuristic.selector.entity.EntitySelectorConfig;
+import ai.timefold.solve... | ```suggestion
``` |
timefold-solver | github_2023 | java | 767 | TimefoldAI | zepfred | @@ -0,0 +1,180 @@
+package ai.timefold.solver.core.config.heuristic.selector.move;
+
+import java.util.Random;
+
+import ai.timefold.solver.core.config.heuristic.selector.common.nearby.NearbySelectionConfig;
+import ai.timefold.solver.core.config.heuristic.selector.entity.EntitySelectorConfig;
+import ai.timefold.solve... | ```suggestion
return nearbyConfig.withEntitySelectorConfig(entityConfig)
``` |
timefold-solver | github_2023 | java | 767 | TimefoldAI | zepfred | @@ -0,0 +1,180 @@
+package ai.timefold.solver.core.config.heuristic.selector.move;
+
+import java.util.Random;
+
+import ai.timefold.solver.core.config.heuristic.selector.common.nearby.NearbySelectionConfig;
+import ai.timefold.solver.core.config.heuristic.selector.entity.EntitySelectorConfig;
+import ai.timefold.solve... | Let's inline the returning operation for the existing methods. |
timefold-solver | github_2023 | java | 767 | TimefoldAI | zepfred | @@ -0,0 +1,19 @@
+package ai.timefold.solver.core.config.heuristic.selector.move;
+
+import java.util.Random;
+
+import ai.timefold.solver.core.impl.heuristic.selector.common.nearby.NearbyDistanceMeter;
+
+/**
+ * General superclass for move selectors that support Nearby Selection autoconfiguration in construction heur... | I'm unsure if it is a good idea for this interface to extend `NearbyAutoConfigurationMoveSelectorConfig`. I am aware that multiple inheritance is not supported, so I suggest converting the classes `NearbyConstructionHeuristicAutoConfigurationMoveSelectorConfig` and `NearbyAutoConfigurationMoveSelectorConfig` into inter... |
timefold-solver | github_2023 | java | 767 | TimefoldAI | zepfred | @@ -56,6 +56,13 @@ public ConstructionHeuristicPhase<Solution_> buildPhase(int phaseIndex, Heuristi
ValueSorterManner valueSorterManner = Objects.requireNonNullElse( | Maybe remove valueSorterManner from your construction heuristics settings? |
timefold-solver | github_2023 | java | 766 | TimefoldAI | triceo | @@ -330,6 +331,21 @@ Some solver configs (%s) don't specify a %s class, yet there are multiple availa
assertTargetClasses(targetList, DotNames.PLANNING_SOLUTION);
}
+ private void assertNodeSharingDisabled(Map<String, SolverConfig> solverConfigMap) {
+ for (var entry : solverConfigMap.entrySet... | You probably wanted to get the string on a single line, but I don't think it's necessary.
In fact, the suggestion typically follows on the second line; in which case, you can use the raw string and can avoid the parens and the concat. |
timefold-solver | github_2023 | java | 758 | TimefoldAI | triceo | @@ -176,28 +189,28 @@ private void assertJustification(String message, ConstraintJustification... just
throw new AssertionError(assertionMessage);
}
- List<Object> noneMatchedList = new LinkedList<>();
- List<Object> invalidMatchList = new LinkedList<>();
+ List<Object> expe... | Let's use `ArrayList` exclusively. `LinkedList` theoretically has some advantages, but practically, it has none.
This doesn't exactly match our use case, but it does a good job of explaining why the reasons people like LinkedList are actually kinda false:
https://kjellkod.wordpress.com/2012/02/25/why-you-should-n... |
timefold-solver | github_2023 | java | 761 | TimefoldAI | triceo | @@ -204,6 +204,20 @@ public static <T> List<T> inheritMergeableListProperty(List<T> originalList, Lis
}
}
+ public static <T> List<T> inheritUniqueMergeableListProperty(List<T> originalList, List<T> inheritedList) {
+ if (inheritedList == null) {
+ return originalList;
+ } el... | I think it'd read easier if it were instead:
Set<T> mergedSet = new LinkedHashSet<>(originalList);
mergedSet.addAll(inheritedList);
return new ArrayList<>(mergedSet);
Maintains insertion order, doesn't need to use any streams, and absolute efficiency is not required here.
|
timefold-solver | github_2023 | java | 759 | TimefoldAI | zepfred | @@ -52,39 +52,45 @@ public boolean isEntityIndependent() {
@Override
public ValueRange<?> extractValueRange(Solution_ solution, Object entity) {
- List<CountableValueRange<?>> childValueRangeList = new ArrayList<>(childValueRangeDescriptorList.size());
- for (ValueRangeDescriptor<Solution_> va... | Do we have tests to validate the changes? |
timefold-solver | github_2023 | java | 755 | TimefoldAI | zepfred | @@ -29,14 +30,35 @@ public abstract class AbstractPhaseScope<Solution_> {
protected int bestSolutionStepIndex;
- public AbstractPhaseScope(SolverScope<Solution_> solverScope) {
+ /**
+ * As defined by #AbstractPhaseScope(SolverScope, boolean),
+ * with the phaseSendsBestSolutionEvents parameter s... | Should we use the default nomenclature `isPhaseSendsBestSolutionEvents`? |
timefold-solver | github_2023 | java | 755 | TimefoldAI | zepfred | @@ -8,20 +8,19 @@
import ai.timefold.solver.core.impl.solver.scope.SolverScope;
import ai.timefold.solver.core.impl.solver.thread.ChildThreadType;
-public class BestScoreFeasibleTermination<Solution_> extends AbstractTermination<Solution_> {
+public final class BestScoreFeasibleTermination<Solution_> extends Abstra... | ```suggestion
"The timeGradientWeightNumbers (%s)'s length (%d) is not 1 less than the feasibleLevelsSize (%d)."
``` |
timefold-solver | github_2023 | java | 755 | TimefoldAI | zepfred | @@ -56,7 +56,7 @@ public double calculatePhaseTimeGradient(AbstractPhaseScope<Solution_> phaseScop
return calculateTimeGradient(phaseTimeMillisSpent);
}
- protected double calculateTimeGradient(long timeMillisSpent) {
+ private double calculateTimeGradient(long timeMillisSpent) { | Let's use the `var` keyword as we did in other classes. |
timefold-solver | github_2023 | java | 755 | TimefoldAI | zepfred | @@ -36,7 +32,7 @@ public boolean isPhaseTerminated(AbstractPhaseScope<Solution_> phaseScope) {
return unimprovedStepCount >= unimprovedStepCountLimit;
}
- protected int calculateUnimprovedStepCount(AbstractPhaseScope<Solution_> phaseScope) {
+ private static int calculateUnimprovedStepCount(Abstra... | Let's use the `var` keyword as we did in other classes. |
timefold-solver | github_2023 | java | 755 | TimefoldAI | zepfred | @@ -127,18 +139,24 @@ protected boolean isTerminated(long safeTimeMillis) {
@Override
public double calculateSolverTimeGradient(SolverScope<Solution_> solverScope) {
+ if (!currentPhaseSendsBestSolutionEvents) {
+ return 0.0;
+ }
return calculateTimeGradient(solverSafeTimeM... | ```suggestion
private double calculateTimeGradient(long safeTimeMillis) {
if (!currentPhaseSendsBestSolutionEvents) {
return 0.0;
}
``` |
timefold-solver | github_2023 | java | 755 | TimefoldAI | zepfred | @@ -127,18 +139,24 @@ protected boolean isTerminated(long safeTimeMillis) {
@Override
public double calculateSolverTimeGradient(SolverScope<Solution_> solverScope) {
+ if (!currentPhaseSendsBestSolutionEvents) { | ```suggestion
``` |
timefold-solver | github_2023 | java | 755 | TimefoldAI | zepfred | @@ -127,18 +139,24 @@ protected boolean isTerminated(long safeTimeMillis) {
@Override
public double calculateSolverTimeGradient(SolverScope<Solution_> solverScope) {
+ if (!currentPhaseSendsBestSolutionEvents) {
+ return 0.0;
+ }
return calculateTimeGradient(solverSafeTimeM... | ```suggestion
``` |
timefold-solver | github_2023 | java | 755 | TimefoldAI | zepfred | @@ -127,18 +139,24 @@ protected boolean isTerminated(long safeTimeMillis) {
@Override
public double calculateSolverTimeGradient(SolverScope<Solution_> solverScope) {
+ if (!currentPhaseSendsBestSolutionEvents) {
+ return 0.0; | ```suggestion
``` |
timefold-solver | github_2023 | java | 755 | TimefoldAI | zepfred | @@ -127,18 +139,24 @@ protected boolean isTerminated(long safeTimeMillis) {
@Override
public double calculateSolverTimeGradient(SolverScope<Solution_> solverScope) {
+ if (!currentPhaseSendsBestSolutionEvents) {
+ return 0.0;
+ } | ```suggestion
``` |
timefold-solver | github_2023 | java | 755 | TimefoldAI | zepfred | @@ -29,26 +31,50 @@ public long getUnimprovedTimeMillisSpentLimit() {
return unimprovedTimeMillisSpentLimit;
}
+ @Override
+ public void phaseStarted(AbstractPhaseScope<Solution_> phaseScope) {
+ /*
+ * Construction heuristics and similar phases only trigger best solution events at ... | ```suggestion
if (!currentPhaseSendsBestSolutionEvents) {
return false;
}
return getUnimprovedTimeMillisSpent(bestSolutionTimeMillis) >= unimprovedTimeMillisSpentLimit;
``` |
timefold-solver | github_2023 | java | 755 | TimefoldAI | zepfred | @@ -29,26 +31,50 @@ public long getUnimprovedTimeMillisSpentLimit() {
return unimprovedTimeMillisSpentLimit;
}
+ @Override
+ public void phaseStarted(AbstractPhaseScope<Solution_> phaseScope) {
+ /*
+ * Construction heuristics and similar phases only trigger best solution events at ... | ```suggestion
``` |
timefold-solver | github_2023 | java | 755 | TimefoldAI | zepfred | @@ -29,26 +31,50 @@ public long getUnimprovedTimeMillisSpentLimit() {
return unimprovedTimeMillisSpentLimit;
}
+ @Override
+ public void phaseStarted(AbstractPhaseScope<Solution_> phaseScope) {
+ /*
+ * Construction heuristics and similar phases only trigger best solution events at ... | ```suggestion
``` |
timefold-solver | github_2023 | java | 755 | TimefoldAI | zepfred | @@ -29,26 +31,50 @@ public long getUnimprovedTimeMillisSpentLimit() {
return unimprovedTimeMillisSpentLimit;
}
+ @Override
+ public void phaseStarted(AbstractPhaseScope<Solution_> phaseScope) {
+ /*
+ * Construction heuristics and similar phases only trigger best solution events at ... | ```suggestion
``` |
timefold-solver | github_2023 | java | 755 | TimefoldAI | zepfred | @@ -29,26 +31,50 @@ public long getUnimprovedTimeMillisSpentLimit() {
return unimprovedTimeMillisSpentLimit;
}
+ @Override
+ public void phaseStarted(AbstractPhaseScope<Solution_> phaseScope) {
+ /*
+ * Construction heuristics and similar phases only trigger best solution events at ... | ```suggestion
``` |
timefold-solver | github_2023 | java | 755 | TimefoldAI | zepfred | @@ -29,26 +31,50 @@ public long getUnimprovedTimeMillisSpentLimit() {
return unimprovedTimeMillisSpentLimit;
}
+ @Override
+ public void phaseStarted(AbstractPhaseScope<Solution_> phaseScope) {
+ /*
+ * Construction heuristics and similar phases only trigger best solution events at ... | ```suggestion
``` |
timefold-solver | github_2023 | java | 755 | TimefoldAI | zepfred | @@ -29,26 +31,50 @@ public long getUnimprovedTimeMillisSpentLimit() {
return unimprovedTimeMillisSpentLimit;
}
+ @Override
+ public void phaseStarted(AbstractPhaseScope<Solution_> phaseScope) {
+ /*
+ * Construction heuristics and similar phases only trigger best solution events at ... | ```suggestion
``` |
timefold-solver | github_2023 | java | 755 | TimefoldAI | zepfred | @@ -104,20 +110,26 @@ public void stepEnded(AbstractStepScope<Solution_> stepScope) {
@Override
public boolean isSolverTerminated(SolverScope<Solution_> solverScope) {
+ if (!currentPhaseSendsBestSolutionEvents) {
+ return false;
+ }
return isTerminated(solverSafeTimeMillis... | ```suggestion
if (!currentPhaseSendsBestSolutionEvents) {
return false;
}
var now = clock.millis();
``` |
timefold-solver | github_2023 | java | 755 | TimefoldAI | zepfred | @@ -104,20 +110,26 @@ public void stepEnded(AbstractStepScope<Solution_> stepScope) {
@Override
public boolean isSolverTerminated(SolverScope<Solution_> solverScope) {
+ if (!currentPhaseSendsBestSolutionEvents) { | ```suggestion
``` |
timefold-solver | github_2023 | java | 755 | TimefoldAI | zepfred | @@ -104,20 +110,26 @@ public void stepEnded(AbstractStepScope<Solution_> stepScope) {
@Override
public boolean isSolverTerminated(SolverScope<Solution_> solverScope) {
+ if (!currentPhaseSendsBestSolutionEvents) {
+ return false; | ```suggestion
``` |
timefold-solver | github_2023 | java | 755 | TimefoldAI | zepfred | @@ -104,20 +110,26 @@ public void stepEnded(AbstractStepScope<Solution_> stepScope) {
@Override
public boolean isSolverTerminated(SolverScope<Solution_> solverScope) {
+ if (!currentPhaseSendsBestSolutionEvents) {
+ return false;
+ } | ```suggestion
``` |
timefold-solver | github_2023 | java | 755 | TimefoldAI | zepfred | @@ -104,20 +110,26 @@ public void stepEnded(AbstractStepScope<Solution_> stepScope) {
@Override
public boolean isSolverTerminated(SolverScope<Solution_> solverScope) {
+ if (!currentPhaseSendsBestSolutionEvents) {
+ return false;
+ }
return isTerminated(solverSafeTimeMillis... | ```suggestion
``` |
timefold-solver | github_2023 | java | 755 | TimefoldAI | zepfred | @@ -104,20 +110,26 @@ public void stepEnded(AbstractStepScope<Solution_> stepScope) {
@Override
public boolean isSolverTerminated(SolverScope<Solution_> solverScope) {
+ if (!currentPhaseSendsBestSolutionEvents) {
+ return false;
+ }
return isTerminated(solverSafeTimeMillis... | ```suggestion
``` |
timefold-solver | github_2023 | java | 755 | TimefoldAI | zepfred | @@ -104,20 +110,26 @@ public void stepEnded(AbstractStepScope<Solution_> stepScope) {
@Override
public boolean isSolverTerminated(SolverScope<Solution_> solverScope) {
+ if (!currentPhaseSendsBestSolutionEvents) {
+ return false;
+ }
return isTerminated(solverSafeTimeMillis... | ```suggestion
``` |
timefold-solver | github_2023 | java | 755 | TimefoldAI | zepfred | @@ -130,13 +120,124 @@ void scoreImprovesTooLate_terminates() {
assertThat(termination.calculateSolverTimeGradient(solverScope)).isEqualTo(1.0, withPrecision(0.0));
// third step - score has improved beyond the threshold, but too late
- when(clock.millis()).thenReturn(START_TIME_MILLIS + 1001... | Let's also check the condition the time runs out |
timefold-solver | github_2023 | java | 755 | TimefoldAI | zepfred | @@ -130,13 +120,124 @@ void scoreImprovesTooLate_terminates() {
assertThat(termination.calculateSolverTimeGradient(solverScope)).isEqualTo(1.0, withPrecision(0.0));
// third step - score has improved beyond the threshold, but too late
- when(clock.millis()).thenReturn(START_TIME_MILLIS + 1001... | Same as above |
timefold-solver | github_2023 | java | 755 | TimefoldAI | zepfred | @@ -25,37 +28,107 @@ void forNegativeUnimprovedTimeMillis_exceptionIsThrown() {
@Test
void solverTermination() {
- SolverScope<TestdataSolution> solverScope = mock(SolverScope.class);
+ SolverScope<TestdataSolution> solverScope = spy(new SolverScope<>());
+ AbstractPhaseScope<TestdataSo... | Nice tests! |
timefold-solver | github_2023 | others | 755 | TimefoldAI | zepfred | @@ -459,6 +459,13 @@ Just like <<timeMillisSpentTermination,time spent termination>>, combinations ar
It is preffered to configure this termination on a specific `Phase` (such as ``<localSearch>``) instead of on the `Solver` itself.
+Several phases, such as construction heuristics, do not count towards this termin... | ```suggestion
If such a phase is encountered, the termination is disabled and when the next phase is started,
``` |
timefold-solver | github_2023 | java | 714 | TimefoldAI | triceo | @@ -173,7 +187,7 @@ public void writeToFile(Path parentFolder) {
}
public static final class Builder<X extends Number & Comparable<X>, Y extends Number & Comparable<Y>> {
-
+ private static final int MAX_CHART_WIDTH = 1280; | Seems low, no? I'd increase it up to 4K width, which is 3840. |
timefold-solver | github_2023 | java | 714 | TimefoldAI | triceo | @@ -209,25 +223,35 @@ public LineChart<X, Y> build(String fileName, String title, String xLabel, Strin
* This allows Chart.js to only draw the absolute minimum necessary points.
*/
data.values().forEach(map -> {
- List<Map.Entry<X, Y>> entries = map.entrySet().str... | I'd really like us to start using `var` for these generic-heavy things.
The declaration brings no additional context here. You already know it's a list (`toList()`) and you already know it is an entry (`entrySet()`). |
timefold-solver | github_2023 | java | 714 | TimefoldAI | triceo | @@ -209,25 +223,35 @@ public LineChart<X, Y> build(String fileName, String title, String xLabel, Strin
* This allows Chart.js to only draw the absolute minimum necessary points.
*/
data.values().forEach(map -> {
- List<Map.Entry<X, Y>> entries = map.entrySet().str... | Another great place for `var`. Makes the code much more readable.
In fact, I'd go as far as saying that we should make `var` the default, and use the full type if we have a reason to do that. |
timefold-solver | github_2023 | others | 714 | TimefoldAI | triceo | @@ -34,7 +31,7 @@ var ${chartId} = new Chart(document.getElementById('${chartId}'), {
borderWidth: 1
</#if>,
data: [
- <#list dataset.data() as datum><#if datum??>${datum?cn}</#if><#sep>, </#sep></#list>
+ <#list chart.poin... | If I may recommend - don't touch the format of JS files.
I spent days tweaking chart.js to avoid all of its bugs and quirks. Sometimes it required weird choices in data set format. Unless you want to manually check every single supported chart, including tooltips, scaling and different browsers, I recommend not touc... |
timefold-solver | github_2023 | others | 714 | TimefoldAI | triceo | @@ -0,0 +1 @@
+18479.00/-529067.00,18751.00/-528929.00,19215.00/-528612.00,19303.00/-528321.00,19953.00/-527645.00,20260.00/-527138.00,20713.00/-525693.00,21012.00/-525142.00,21256.00/-524264.00,21775.00/-523486.00,22214.00/-523138.00,22572.00/-522136.00,23041.00/-521110.00,23762.00/-519091.00,24210.00/-518093.00,24754... | Ideally this file would have the same format as the input files.
And all those input files would be called not `.txt`, but `.csv`, because that is what they are - comma-separated values. |
timefold-solver | github_2023 | java | 673 | TimefoldAI | triceo | @@ -191,18 +198,112 @@ private UnionMoveSelectorConfig determineDefaultMoveSelectorConfig(HeuristicConf
.filter(variableDescriptor -> !variableDescriptor.isListVariable())
.distinct()
.toList();
+ var hasChainedVariable = basicVariableDescriptorList.stream()
+ ... | I'm asking myself... if we're adding this move, why only for nearby? Does it make sense to add it for both? |
timefold-solver | github_2023 | java | 673 | TimefoldAI | triceo | @@ -191,18 +198,112 @@ private UnionMoveSelectorConfig determineDefaultMoveSelectorConfig(HeuristicConf
.filter(variableDescriptor -> !variableDescriptor.isListVariable())
.distinct()
.toList();
+ var hasChainedVariable = basicVariableDescriptorList.stream()
+ ... | Same question here. |
timefold-solver | github_2023 | java | 673 | TimefoldAI | triceo | @@ -191,18 +198,112 @@ private UnionMoveSelectorConfig determineDefaultMoveSelectorConfig(HeuristicConf
.filter(variableDescriptor -> !variableDescriptor.isListVariable())
.distinct()
.toList();
+ var hasChainedVariable = basicVariableDescriptorList.stream()
+ ... | How can this even happen? List and basic vars are mutually incompatible - so shouldn't this `else` branch fail fast instead? Or is there a place where this actually works? |
timefold-solver | github_2023 | java | 673 | TimefoldAI | triceo | @@ -191,18 +198,112 @@ private UnionMoveSelectorConfig determineDefaultMoveSelectorConfig(HeuristicConf
.filter(variableDescriptor -> !variableDescriptor.isListVariable())
.distinct()
.toList();
+ var hasChainedVariable = basicVariableDescriptorList.stream()
+ ... | I'm thinking... I don't remember the specific behavior, but aren't these supposed to be unique? Maybe we want to generate the selector names with some randomness? `changeMoveSelector-f4edab` or something like that. |
timefold-solver | github_2023 | java | 673 | TimefoldAI | triceo | @@ -191,21 +199,137 @@ private UnionMoveSelectorConfig determineDefaultMoveSelectorConfig(HeuristicConf
.filter(variableDescriptor -> !variableDescriptor.isListVariable())
.distinct()
.toList();
+ var hasChainedVariable = basicVariableDescriptorList.stream()
+ ... | ```suggestion
"""
The configuration contains both basic and list variables, which makes it incompatible with using a top-level nearbyDistanceMeterClass (%s).
Specify move selectors manually or remove the top-level nearbyDistanceMeterClass from y... |
timefold-solver | github_2023 | java | 673 | TimefoldAI | triceo | @@ -191,21 +199,137 @@ private UnionMoveSelectorConfig determineDefaultMoveSelectorConfig(HeuristicConf
.filter(variableDescriptor -> !variableDescriptor.isListVariable())
.distinct()
.toList();
+ var hasChainedVariable = basicVariableDescriptorList.stream()
+ ... | I recommend turning the code for randomness into its own method - it is repeated far too often. Something like `addRandomSuffix(...)`.
Also, any chance we could make this randomness deterministic, sharing a pre-determined random seed across all the invocations? |
timefold-solver | github_2023 | java | 673 | TimefoldAI | triceo | @@ -191,21 +199,137 @@ private UnionMoveSelectorConfig determineDefaultMoveSelectorConfig(HeuristicConf
.filter(variableDescriptor -> !variableDescriptor.isListVariable())
.distinct()
.toList();
+ var hasChainedVariable = basicVariableDescriptorList.stream()
+ ... | The method is getting crazy long. I suggest we split it into parts - perhaps each of these inner-most branches gets its own method? |
timefold-solver | github_2023 | others | 596 | TimefoldAI | triceo | @@ -0,0 +1,52 @@
+////
+Quarkus and Spring Boot support the same configuration properties. | Good idea.
One thing that's not entirely obvious to me is the `<solverName>` part. You explain it in another section, and that is fine. But do you ever mention that this is optional? That `<solverName>` can be exluded if you only ever inject one thing?
I think this needs to be described in more detail, to give mo... |
timefold-solver | github_2023 | others | 596 | TimefoldAI | triceo | @@ -0,0 +1,52 @@
+////
+Quarkus and Spring Boot support the same configuration properties.
+All the properties are in this file, which can then be included multiple times.
+The {property_prefix} attribute is used for Quarkus properties.
+////
+
+{property_prefix}timefold.solver.<solverName>.solver-config-xml::
+A class... | What do you mean "optional"? If the property is not specified, but the file `solverConfig.xml` is still found, will it be used? And if the file is not found/not used, where do the defaults come frome?
(I'm not saying we should _change_ existing behavior, but we should _describe_ it.) |
timefold-solver | github_2023 | others | 596 | TimefoldAI | triceo | @@ -0,0 +1,52 @@
+////
+Quarkus and Spring Boot support the same configuration properties.
+All the properties are in this file, which can then be included multiple times.
+The {property_prefix} attribute is used for Quarkus properties.
+////
+
+{property_prefix}timefold.solver.<solverName>.solver-config-xml::
+A class... | Could use a link to the chapter discussing those. |
timefold-solver | github_2023 | others | 596 | TimefoldAI | triceo | @@ -0,0 +1,52 @@
+////
+Quarkus and Spring Boot support the same configuration properties.
+All the properties are in this file, which can then be included multiple times.
+The {property_prefix} attribute is used for Quarkus properties.
+////
+
+{property_prefix}timefold.solver.<solverName>.solver-config-xml::
+A class... | Add a link to a chapter on solver configuration. |
timefold-solver | github_2023 | others | 596 | TimefoldAI | triceo | @@ -0,0 +1,52 @@
+////
+Quarkus and Spring Boot support the same configuration properties.
+All the properties are in this file, which can then be included multiple times.
+The {property_prefix} attribute is used for Quarkus properties.
+////
+
+{property_prefix}timefold.solver.<solverName>.solver-config-xml::
+A class... | Since this is for Spring Boot, I recommend adding a note on Gizmo limitations outside of Quarkus.
If we have this in the docs already, a link will be enough.
Otherwise we really should explain how GIZMO - for some minor performance benefits - requires you to open your domain model, making fields public. |
timefold-solver | github_2023 | others | 596 | TimefoldAI | triceo | @@ -0,0 +1,52 @@
+////
+Quarkus and Spring Boot support the same configuration properties.
+All the properties are in this file, which can then be included multiple times.
+The {property_prefix} attribute is used for Quarkus properties.
+////
+
+{property_prefix}timefold.solver.<solverName>.solver-config-xml::
+A class... | I am not entirely sure, but don't we support the ISO duration format [1] here?
If so, we might as well provide a link.
[1] https://www.digi.com/resources/documentation/digidocs/90001488-13/reference/r_iso_8601_duration_format.htm |
timefold-solver | github_2023 | others | 596 | TimefoldAI | triceo | @@ -0,0 +1,52 @@
+////
+Quarkus and Spring Boot support the same configuration properties.
+All the properties are in this file, which can then be included multiple times.
+The {property_prefix} attribute is used for Quarkus properties.
+////
+
+{property_prefix}timefold.solver.<solverName>.solver-config-xml::
+A class... | Dtto. |
timefold-solver | github_2023 | others | 596 | TimefoldAI | triceo | @@ -0,0 +1,52 @@
+////
+Quarkus and Spring Boot support the same configuration properties.
+All the properties are in this file, which can then be included multiple times.
+The {property_prefix} attribute is used for Quarkus properties.
+////
+
+{property_prefix}timefold.solver.<solverName>.solver-config-xml::
+A class... | I'd say "when a specific score (or better) has been reached". |
timefold-solver | github_2023 | others | 596 | TimefoldAI | triceo | @@ -0,0 +1,52 @@
+////
+Quarkus and Spring Boot support the same configuration properties.
+All the properties are in this file, which can then be included multiple times.
+The {property_prefix} attribute is used for Quarkus properties.
+////
+
+{property_prefix}timefold.solver.<solverName>.solver-config-xml::
+A class... | Is this true? Wow, I didn't know. Cool. |
timefold-solver | github_2023 | others | 596 | TimefoldAI | triceo | @@ -271,22 +271,743 @@ To use Timefold Solver with Quarkus, read the xref:quickstart/quarkus/quarkus-qu
If you are starting a new project, visit the https://code.quarkus.io/[code.quarkus.io] and select
the _Timefold AI constraint solver_ extension before generating your application.
+=== Timefold configuration prop... | I'd call this "injecting managed resources". |
timefold-solver | github_2023 | others | 596 | TimefoldAI | triceo | @@ -271,22 +271,743 @@ To use Timefold Solver with Quarkus, read the xref:quickstart/quarkus/quarkus-qu
If you are starting a new project, visit the https://code.quarkus.io/[code.quarkus.io] and select
the _Timefold AI constraint solver_ extension before generating your application.
+=== Timefold configuration prop... | Don't we have a list of score types elsewhere in the docs? If so, I'd just reference that. No point in duplicating content. |
timefold-solver | github_2023 | others | 596 | TimefoldAI | triceo | @@ -271,22 +271,743 @@ To use Timefold Solver with Quarkus, read the xref:quickstart/quarkus/quarkus-qu
If you are starting a new project, visit the https://code.quarkus.io/[code.quarkus.io] and select
the _Timefold AI constraint solver_ extension before generating your application.
+=== Timefold configuration prop... | ```suggestion
(solution, entities, and constraint classes) and customized properties (`spent-limit`, `domain-access-type` etc.) for the
``` |
timefold-solver | github_2023 | others | 596 | TimefoldAI | triceo | @@ -271,22 +271,743 @@ To use Timefold Solver with Quarkus, read the xref:quickstart/quarkus/quarkus-qu
If you are starting a new project, visit the https://code.quarkus.io/[code.quarkus.io] and select
the _Timefold AI constraint solver_ extension before generating your application.
+=== Timefold configuration prop... | I am not entirely sure why we're selling this as multi-stage planning. This feature can be used for other uses as well. It is a generic feature.
Personally, I'd remove references to multi-stage, turn it into a generic chapter on injecting multiple instances of `SolverManager`, and maybe mention in a note that this f... |
timefold-solver | github_2023 | others | 596 | TimefoldAI | triceo | @@ -271,22 +271,743 @@ To use Timefold Solver with Quarkus, read the xref:quickstart/quarkus/quarkus-qu
If you are starting a new project, visit the https://code.quarkus.io/[code.quarkus.io] and select
the _Timefold AI constraint solver_ extension before generating your application.
+=== Timefold configuration prop... | ```suggestion
The different solver settings are configured in the `application.properties` file. For example, two different time
settings for `spent-limit` are defined as follows:
``` |
timefold-solver | github_2023 | others | 596 | TimefoldAI | triceo | @@ -271,22 +271,743 @@ To use Timefold Solver with Quarkus, read the xref:quickstart/quarkus/quarkus-qu
If you are starting a new project, visit the https://code.quarkus.io/[code.quarkus.io] and select
the _Timefold AI constraint solver_ extension before generating your application.
+=== Timefold configuration prop... | ```suggestion
=== Available configuration properties
```
This is the Timefold documentation. No need to repeat the name over and over; and even if that were necessary, it'd be `Timefold Solver`, not `Timefold`. |
timefold-solver | github_2023 | others | 596 | TimefoldAI | triceo | @@ -271,22 +271,743 @@ To use Timefold Solver with Quarkus, read the xref:quickstart/quarkus/quarkus-qu
If you are starting a new project, visit the https://code.quarkus.io/[code.quarkus.io] and select
the _Timefold AI constraint solver_ extension before generating your application.
+=== Timefold configuration prop... | This is what I mean with the multi-stage planning.
It's irrelevant to this comment - no matter if you use multi-stage or not, when injecting multiple `@Named` instances, you can only use the `SolverManager`. |
timefold-solver | github_2023 | others | 596 | TimefoldAI | triceo | @@ -271,22 +271,743 @@ To use Timefold Solver with Quarkus, read the xref:quickstart/quarkus/quarkus-qu
If you are starting a new project, visit the https://code.quarkus.io/[code.quarkus.io] and select
the _Timefold AI constraint solver_ extension before generating your application.
+=== Timefold configuration prop... | I think you brought in the multi-stage planning because you needed a good use case for this feature. However, I think the example you ended up with may cause more confusion. I don't think we should be telling people to have two constraint providers, one for every part of a problem. (Even though a minority of users will... |
timefold-solver | github_2023 | others | 596 | TimefoldAI | triceo | @@ -271,22 +271,708 @@ To use Timefold Solver with Quarkus, read the xref:quickstart/quarkus/quarkus-qu
If you are starting a new project, visit the https://code.quarkus.io/[code.quarkus.io] and select
the _Timefold AI constraint solver_ extension before generating your application.
+[#integrationWithQuarkusPropert... | Please change the ref to match the title. |
timefold-solver | github_2023 | others | 596 | TimefoldAI | triceo | @@ -0,0 +1,61 @@
+////
+Quarkus and Spring Boot support the same configuration properties.
+All the properties are in this file, which can then be included multiple times.
+The {property_prefix} attribute is used for Quarkus properties.
+////
+
+{property_prefix}timefold.solver.<solverName>.solver-config-xml:: | I'm thinking... this is content duplication with the `config-properties.adoc` file.
Can we somehow define a property (just like we do `property_prefix`) which will only inject `<solverName>.` when necessary by the context?
That way, we'll be able to use the same file for all three places where it's used. |
timefold-solver | github_2023 | others | 596 | TimefoldAI | triceo | @@ -271,22 +271,708 @@ To use Timefold Solver with Quarkus, read the xref:quickstart/quarkus/quarkus-qu
If you are starting a new project, visit the https://code.quarkus.io/[code.quarkus.io] and select
the _Timefold AI constraint solver_ extension before generating your application.
+[#integrationWithQuarkusPropert... | ```suggestion
Multi-stage planning can also be accomplished by using a separate solver configuration for each optimization stage.
``` |
timefold-solver | github_2023 | java | 564 | TimefoldAI | triceo | @@ -0,0 +1,312 @@
+package ai.timefold.solver.quarkus;
+
+import static org.junit.jupiter.api.Assertions.assertEquals;
+import static org.junit.jupiter.api.Assertions.assertFalse;
+import static org.junit.jupiter.api.Assertions.assertNotNull;
+import static org.junit.jupiter.api.Assertions.assertNotSame;
+import static... | `ScoreManager` is deprecated. We need not and should not support it in this new feature.
Also, aren't we missing the `SolverManager` here? |
timefold-solver | github_2023 | java | 564 | TimefoldAI | triceo | @@ -0,0 +1,312 @@
+package ai.timefold.solver.quarkus;
+
+import static org.junit.jupiter.api.Assertions.assertEquals;
+import static org.junit.jupiter.api.Assertions.assertFalse;
+import static org.junit.jupiter.api.Assertions.assertNotNull;
+import static org.junit.jupiter.api.Assertions.assertNotSame;
+import static... | Are the `Config`/`Factory`/`Manager` suffixes necessary?
They are boilerplate; we need to find a way for this to work with simple names and no such restrictive rules. |
timefold-solver | github_2023 | java | 564 | TimefoldAI | triceo | @@ -66,11 +63,35 @@ void registerAdditionalBeans(BuildProducer<AdditionalBeanBuildItem> additionalBe
} else {
benchmarkConfig = null;
}
- syntheticBeans.produce(SyntheticBeanBuildItem.configure(PlannerBenchmarkConfig.class)
- .supplier(recorder.benchmarkConfigSupplie... | This seems like a defensive comment. You're justifying why you did it like this, as if someone was going to say you've done it wrong.
In my opinion, after this code is merged, this comment no longer has any value. We should remove it. |
timefold-solver | github_2023 | java | 564 | TimefoldAI | triceo | @@ -18,37 +17,40 @@
* See also {@link SolverRuntimeConfig}
*/
@ConfigGroup
-public class SolverBuildTimeConfig {
+public interface SolverBuildTimeConfig { | Have you made sure none of the pre-existing behavior have changed? (In other words: is this 100 % backwards compatible?)
Have you ensured that for the single instance, the config is still properly overriden when using the config XML as well as these properties?
Have you ensured the same with the benchmark config? |
timefold-solver | github_2023 | java | 564 | TimefoldAI | triceo | @@ -1,24 +1,39 @@
package ai.timefold.solver.quarkus.config;
+import java.util.Map;
+import java.util.Optional;
+
import ai.timefold.solver.core.config.solver.SolverConfig;
import ai.timefold.solver.core.config.solver.SolverManagerConfig;
-import io.quarkus.runtime.annotations.ConfigItem;
import io.quarkus.runt... | ```suggestion
* During run time, this is translated into Timefold's {@link SolverConfig} runtime properties per solver.
* If a solver name is not explicitly specified, the solver name will default to {@link #DEFAULT_SOLVER_NAME}.
``` |
timefold-solver | github_2023 | java | 564 | TimefoldAI | triceo | @@ -40,16 +40,20 @@ HotDeploymentWatchedFileBuildItem watchSolverBenchmarkConfigXml() {
}
@BuildStep
- @Record(ExecutionTime.STATIC_INIT)
- void registerAdditionalBeans(BuildProducer<AdditionalBeanBuildItem> additionalBeans,
- BuildProducer<SyntheticBeanBuildItem> syntheticBeans,
+ Bench... | ```suggestion
throw new ConfigurationException("When defining multiple solvers, the benchmark feature is not enabled. " +
"Consider using separate <solverBenchmark> instances for evaluating different solver configurations.");
```
I wouldn't go so far as to recommend specific sectio... |
timefold-solver | github_2023 | java | 564 | TimefoldAI | triceo | @@ -18,37 +19,53 @@
* See also {@link SolverRuntimeConfig}
*/
@ConfigGroup
-public class SolverBuildTimeConfig {
+public interface SolverBuildTimeConfig {
+
+ /**
+ * A classpath resource to read the specific solver configuration XML.
+ *
+ * If this property isn't specified, that solverConfig.xml i... | Any chance to not include the deprecated field for the new config, only keep it for the old way? (If it's too hard to split the two, or requires code duplication, forget about it.) |
timefold-solver | github_2023 | java | 564 | TimefoldAI | triceo | @@ -1,32 +1,47 @@
package ai.timefold.solver.quarkus.deployment.config;
+import java.util.Map;
import java.util.Optional;
import ai.timefold.solver.core.config.solver.SolverConfig;
-import io.quarkus.runtime.annotations.ConfigItem;
+import io.quarkus.runtime.annotations.ConfigPhase;
import io.quarkus.runtime.... | ```suggestion
* Configuration properties that overwrite the {@link SolverConfig} per Solver.
* If a solver name is not explicitly specified, the solver name will default to {@link #DEFAULT_SOLVER_NAME}.
```
When writing about Timefold, please remember:
- Timefold is the company.
- Timefold Solver i... |
timefold-solver | github_2023 | java | 564 | TimefoldAI | triceo | @@ -0,0 +1,115 @@
+package ai.timefold.solver.quarkus;
+
+import static org.junit.jupiter.api.Assertions.assertEquals;
+import static org.junit.jupiter.api.Assertions.assertNotNull;
+import static org.junit.jupiter.api.Assertions.assertTrue;
+
+import java.time.Duration;
+
+import jakarta.inject.Inject;
+
+import ai.ti... | This test - a test for the old behavior - should still test the deprecated `ScoreManager`. It's only the new `@Named` behavior where we don't support it. |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.