Julian Hall
So, here's how your problems stack up now * a-42-40.mps Solves correctly with parallel columns fix * a-43-41.mps * a-45-44.mps * a-50-49.mps Solves correctly with parallel columns fix * a-58-55.mps...
So, quite a saga, but I was wrong about the "incorrect data" being the reason for the errors. However, I found out that some of the presolve reductions for your...
Fixed by #1302
Sorry, yes, the bug in these two has not yet been fixed. All your models are carefully filed in my "to be debugged" folders, so I won't forget
A couple more bugs have been fixed in presolve in recent months, but I'd not gone back through issues to see whether the fixes had resolved them. Thanks for letting...
I've gone through all these instances again, and all problems solve correctly with presolve, except - subset_select_B_on_139_off_138.mps - subset_select_C_on_153_off_152.mps I don't quite understand what you mean by "execute more shrinkproblem...
It's a logging error
I think that the problem is because it's a MIP. I wasn't expecting users to turn on `debug_print`, but I can force the presolve logging to be off for MIPs....
> It is not a MIP, the problem is a pure LP. We don't pass any integer information to HiGHS. Sorry, of course It shouldn't be doing the presolve logging...
So, `presolve_rule_logging` is now off by default (in `fix-1124` - soon to be in `latest`) Since `presolve_rule_logging` used to be on by default, I'm surprised this assert wasn't triggered for...