Carleton Coffrin

This is indeed an issue with the incompatible versions of JuMP that are supported by Alpine and Juniper. You can try pinning Juniper to v0.3, which was the last version...

According to this file, https://github.com/lanl-ansi/Alpine.jl/blob/master/Project.toml you might give Pavito.jl a try. @Wikunia you might want to see if there is an easy way to use an old version of Juniper...

As I recall, this is from an older generation of JuMP when it was not possible if a given solver supports a specific type of problem. I believe this check...

If the problem is non-convex then the relaxation is only locally optimal. Even in the gap is 0, there may be another solution out there with a non-zero gap. That...

also when the relaxation is worse than the incumbent you might also want to do it, just to increase your confidence that you should fathom this node. To cover both...

Yup! I think how to best make use of multiple cores is a good open question for R&D.

In my experience very few solvers support Indicator Constraints. CPlex and Gurobi are the only ones that come to my mind and that is partly because it is not easy...

@blegat, any chance your MOI-only version of Juniper will resolve this point?

I suppose my feeling is that the big-M formulation should be added by a bridge but maybe it is best to have that discussion on then next JuMP call.

After a brief discussion on the JuMP-dev call it is best that Juniper handle this internally and not through a bridge. But I don't expect we will be able to...