[RTR] FIX: example which had an unexpected behavior, and a new that new implementation should pass

[Mart1t1]

Todo:

• Remove MINIMIZE TIME from the example and test in 3.1 and 3.2
• Get the results in 3.1 version from FIX: example continuity accessor errors for solution state access (ex… #825
• Verify we get the same in version 3.2
• Merge

---

This change is 

[Ipuch]

link to #825

[pariterre]

Reviewed 2 of 2 files at r2, all commit messages.
Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 1 unresolved discussion (waiting on @Ipuch and @Mart1t1)

---

tests/shard1/test_continuity_as_objective.py line 51 at r2 (raw file):

    #     [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, np.nan],
    # ]
    #

Values should be reinstated

[Ipuch]

• restore minimize as objective test
• removed "minimize time" for the test as not fundamentally necessary to test the feature
• got convergence for first and second pass in test
• the example as a different sample, I didn't get convergence in 500 iterations on first pass, but got around 700 in the second pass

@EveCharbie can you prereview the PR ?

[EveCharbie]

Thanks @Ipuch

Reviewed all commit messages.
Reviewable status: 0 of 2 files reviewed, 3 unresolved discussions (waiting on @Ipuch, @Mart1t1, and @pariterre)

---

tests/shard1/test_continuity_as_objective.py line 126 at r4 (raw file):

        }
    ]
    expected_iterations = range(5, 35)  # 20 on my laptop @ipuch

I think this should be removed

Code quote:

expected_iterations = range(5, 35)  # 20 on my laptop @ipuch

---

tests/shard1/test_continuity_as_objective.py line 134 at r4 (raw file):

    np.testing.assert_almost_equal(sol_second_pass.vector, np.array([expected_vector]).T, decimal=4)
    np.testing.assert_almost_equal(sol_second_pass.constraints, np.array([expected_constraints]).T, decimal=4)
    np.testing.assert_almost_equal(float(sol_second_pass.cost), expected_cost, decimal=2)

The test seems to still be really sensitive :(
Do you think we should test it with less n_shooting or just make another example?

Code quote:

np.testing.assert_almost_equal(float(sol_second_pass.cost), expected_cost, decimal=2)

[Ipuch]

Reviewed 1 of 2 files at r1.
Reviewable status: 0 of 2 files reviewed, 3 unresolved discussions (waiting on @EveCharbie and @pariterre)

---

tests/shard1/test_continuity_as_objective.py line 51 at r2 (raw file):

Previously, pariterre (Pariterre) wrote…

Values should be reinstated

Done

---

tests/shard1/test_continuity_as_objective.py line 126 at r4 (raw file):

Previously, EveCharbie (Eve Charbonneau) wrote…

I think this should be removed

I think this is good to know the number of iteration is not the same on CI and local computers, in case we have to debug.

---

tests/shard1/test_continuity_as_objective.py line 134 at r4 (raw file):

Previously, EveCharbie (Eve Charbonneau) wrote…

The test seems to still be really sensitive :(
Do you think we should test it with less n_shooting or just make another example?

Solved. I forgot, I increased the precision.

[Ipuch]

Acados not working on MacOS CI. It Should be solved in another PR see #858

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 72.72727% with 3 lines in your changes are missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 78.46%. Comparing base (944c2fe) to head (4856e37).
Report is 6 commits behind head on master.

Files	Patch %	Lines
...getting_started/example_continuity_as_objective.py	72.72%	3 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master     #826      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   78.25%   78.46%   +0.20%     
==========================================
  Files         140      140              
  Lines       16230    16245      +15     
==========================================
+ Hits        12701    12746      +45     
+ Misses       3529     3499      -30     

Flag	Coverage Δ
unittests	78.46% <72.72%> (+0.20%)	⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[pariterre]

Reviewed 1 of 2 files at r5, 1 of 1 files at r7, all commit messages.
Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 2 unresolved discussions (waiting on @EveCharbie)