make objective_scaling_factor optional for gRPC - #1600
Merged
rapids-bot[bot] merged 1 commit intoJul 22, 2026
Conversation
tmckayus
added
bug
|
No actionable comments were generated in the recent review. 🎉 ℹ️ Recent review info⚙️ Run configurationConfiguration used: Path: .coderabbit.yaml Review profile: CHILL Plan: Enterprise Run ID: ⛔ Files ignored due to path filters (3)
📒 Files selected for processing (5)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (5)
📝 WalkthroughWalkthroughThe objective scaling factor now uses protobuf presence tracking across unary and chunked conversion paths, preserving the C++ default when omitted and validating explicit and absent values with round-trip tests. ChangesObjective scaling factor presence
Estimated code review effort: 2 (Simple) | ~10 minutes Suggested reviewers: 🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 5✅ Passed checks (5 passed)
✨ Finishing Touches🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
Warning There were issues while running some tools. Please review the errors and either fix the tool's configuration or disable the tool if it's a critical failure. 🔧 Checkov (3.3.8)cpp/src/grpc/codegen/field_registry.yamlTraceback (most recent call last): Comment |
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
🤖 Prompt for all review comments with AI agents
Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the
rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate.
Inline comments:
In `@cpp/tests/linear_programming/grpc/grpc_client_test.cpp`:
- Around line 1860-1905: Extend UnaryProblemObjectiveScalingPresence and
ChunkedProblemObjectiveScalingPresence with explicit-zero cases: set
objective_scaling_factor to 0, verify the field is present, and assert mapping
follows the existing invalid-value behavior rather than defaulting to 1.0. Keep
the existing omission and 2.5 presence coverage unchanged.
🪄 Autofix (Beta)
Fix all unresolved CodeRabbit comments on this PR:
- Push a commit to this branch (recommended)
- Create a new PR with the fixes
ℹ️ Review info
⚙️ Run configuration
Configuration used: Path: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Enterprise
Run ID: b780aed9-f610-4ec1-b85c-cf49e8faf5fb
⛔ Files ignored due to path filters (3)
cpp/src/grpc/codegen/generated/cuopt_remote_data.protois excluded by!**/generated/**cpp/src/grpc/codegen/generated/generated_chunked_header_to_problem.incis excluded by!**/generated/**cpp/src/grpc/codegen/generated/generated_proto_to_problem.incis excluded by!**/generated/**
📒 Files selected for processing (5)
cpp/src/grpc/codegen/FIELD_REGISTRY_REFERENCE.mdcpp/src/grpc/codegen/field_registry.yamlcpp/src/grpc/codegen/generate_conversions.pycpp/src/grpc/cuopt_remote_service.protocpp/tests/linear_programming/grpc/grpc_client_test.cpp
Comment on lines
+1860
to
+1905
| TEST(MapperRoundtrip, UnaryProblemObjectiveScalingPresence) | ||
| { | ||
| cuopt::remote::OptimizationProblem omitted; | ||
| omitted.add_c(0.0); | ||
| omitted.add_variable_lower_bounds(0.0); | ||
| omitted.add_variable_upper_bounds(1.0); | ||
| ASSERT_FALSE(omitted.has_objective_scaling_factor()); | ||
|
|
||
| cpu_optimization_problem_t<int32_t, double> restored_default; | ||
| map_proto_to_problem(omitted, restored_default); | ||
| EXPECT_DOUBLE_EQ(restored_default.get_objective_scaling_factor(), 1.0); | ||
|
|
||
| cpu_optimization_problem_t<int32_t, double> orig; | ||
| const std::vector<double> objective{0.0}; | ||
| const std::vector<double> lower_bound{0.0}; | ||
| const std::vector<double> upper_bound{1.0}; | ||
| orig.set_objective_coefficients(objective.data(), objective.size()); | ||
| orig.set_variable_lower_bounds(lower_bound.data(), lower_bound.size()); | ||
| orig.set_variable_upper_bounds(upper_bound.data(), upper_bound.size()); | ||
| orig.set_objective_scaling_factor(2.5); | ||
| cuopt::remote::OptimizationProblem present; | ||
| map_problem_to_proto(orig, &present); | ||
| ASSERT_TRUE(present.has_objective_scaling_factor()); | ||
| EXPECT_DOUBLE_EQ(present.objective_scaling_factor(), 2.5); | ||
|
|
||
| cpu_optimization_problem_t<int32_t, double> restored_present; | ||
| map_proto_to_problem(present, restored_present); | ||
| EXPECT_DOUBLE_EQ(restored_present.get_objective_scaling_factor(), 2.5); | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| TEST(MapperRoundtrip, ChunkedProblemObjectiveScalingPresence) | ||
| { | ||
| cuopt::remote::ChunkedProblemHeader omitted; | ||
| ASSERT_FALSE(omitted.has_objective_scaling_factor()); | ||
|
|
||
| cpu_optimization_problem_t<int32_t, double> restored_default; | ||
| map_chunked_header_to_problem(omitted, restored_default); | ||
| EXPECT_DOUBLE_EQ(restored_default.get_objective_scaling_factor(), 1.0); | ||
|
|
||
| omitted.set_objective_scaling_factor(2.5); | ||
| ASSERT_TRUE(omitted.has_objective_scaling_factor()); | ||
|
|
||
| cpu_optimization_problem_t<int32_t, double> restored_present; | ||
| map_chunked_header_to_problem(omitted, restored_present); | ||
| EXPECT_DOUBLE_EQ(restored_present.get_objective_scaling_factor(), 2.5); | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🎯 Functional Correctness | 🟡 Minor | ⚡ Quick win
Add regression coverage for an explicitly set zero.
These tests cover omission and 2.5, but not the required boundary case where objective_scaling_factor is explicitly set to 0; add unary and chunked assertions that this present value follows the existing invalid-value path rather than being treated as absent and defaulting to 1.0.
As per path instructions, mapper tests should cover negative cases and the specific bug-fix regression. The PR objective requires explicit 0 to remain invalid.
🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the
rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate.
In `@cpp/tests/linear_programming/grpc/grpc_client_test.cpp` around lines 1860 -
1905, Extend UnaryProblemObjectiveScalingPresence and
ChunkedProblemObjectiveScalingPresence with explicit-zero cases: set
objective_scaling_factor to 0, verify the field is present, and assert mapping
follows the existing invalid-value behavior rather than defaulting to 1.0. Keep
the existing omission and 2.5 presence coverage unchanged.
Source: Path instructions
CI Test Summary✅ All 31 test job(s) passed. |
mlubin
approved these changes
Jul 22, 2026
This coupled with a presence check adjusts for the proto3 default 0 on omission of non-optional fields, which differs from the cuopt default of 1.
tmckayus
force-pushed
the
fix/grpc-objective-scaling-presence
branch
from
July 22, 2026 15:09
f3f25b4 to
b3790ef
Compare
Contributor
Author
|
/ok to test b3790ef |
ramakrishnap-nv
approved these changes
Jul 22, 2026
Contributor
Author
|
/merge |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This coupled with a presence check adjusts for the proto3 default 0 on omission of non-optional fields, which differs from the cuopt default of 1.
Previously, omitted objective_scaling_factor fields would cause a remote solve to use objective_scaling_factor = 0, instead of the cuopt default "1". (If the field was not omitted, it would only be 0 if explicitly set. Zero is not a valid value in any case).
Found during a routine review of gRPC fields versus local solve.