| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author |
|---|
|
Julian noticed on IRC that I fall victim to a lovely false friend by
calling referring to a 'planer' all the time even through these are
machines to e.g. remove splinters from woodwork ("make stuff plane").
The term I meant is written in german in this way (= with a single n)
but in english there are two, aka: 'planner'.
As that is unreleased code switching all instances without any
transitional provisions. Also the reason why its skipped in changelog.
Thanks: Julian Andres Klode
Gbp-Dch: Ignore
|
|
In 385d9f2f23057bc5808b5e013e77ba16d1c94da4 I implemented the storage of
scenario files based on enabling this by default for EIPP, but I
implemented it first optionally for EDSP to have it independent.
The reasons mentioned in the earlier commit (debugging and bugreports)
obviously apply here, especially as EIPP solutions aren't user approved,
nearly impossible to verify before starting the execution and at the
time of error the scenario has changed already, so that reproducing the
issue becomes hard(er).
|
|
Testing the current implementation can benefit from being able to be
feed an EIPP request and produce a fully compliant response. It is also
a great test for EIPP in general.
|
|
We can trim generation time and size of the EIPP scenario considerable
if we we avoid telling the planers about "uninteresting" packages.
This is one of the simpler but already very effective reductions:
Do not tell planers about versions which are neither installed nor are
to be installed as they have no effect on the plan we don't need to tell
the planer about them. EDSP solvers need to know about all versions for
better choice and error messages, but planers really don't.
Git-Dch: Ignore
|
