Documentation of the employee scheduling

[dietmarwo]

Thanks for this great python examples.
Regarding the employee scheduling I have a few questions:

• Is it possible to configure the generation of larger problem instances?
• When I start the computation I see quite fast the schedule on the web page. But the computation is going on for about a minute. Are there still improvements during this time? Is the computation time for this problem the time until get_solver_status() == SolverStatus.NOT_SOLVING ?
• What about availability type DESIRED ? I see in the final solution that only one out of five "DESIRED" requests are fulfilled. Is this treated as a "soft constraint" or separately or not at all?
• Is there a constraint that an employee should only work once a day?
• Are there other implicit constraints?
• What about multiple competing objectives? You could think of the minimal number of shifts for all employees as a second objective competing with the soft constraints. May be we should give all employees the chance to gain work experience.

I am asking because I am writing a python employee scheduling tutorial using a different approach and would like to compare
to optapy. My own approach solves the problem in less than a second fulfilling all "DESIRED" requests, so a bigger problem instance would be nice. I will include a section how to solve multi-objective variants of the problem generating a pareto-front.

[Christopher-Chianelli]

• Not from command line, but you can modify the schedule generation script: roster length in days, Location list, Number of employees, Number of shifts per timeslot
• There are improvements being made, but optapy currently is extremely slow. The main cause is the cost of calling Python from Java is high. OptaPlanner (in particular constraint streams) call small functions many times per score calculation, which cause the overhead from calling the python function taking the majority of the runtime. To fix this, we need to translate Python bytecode to Java bytecode. The work is currently being done on https://github.com/Christopher-Chianelli/optapy/tree/python-to-java-bytecode, and for school-timetabling, it is 40 times faster (but still about 5 times slower than OptaPlanner). Employee Scheduling and the Vehicle Routing quickstarts do not work on that branch yet.
• It is treated as a soft constraint: it will try to satisfy as many DESIRED requests as possible
• Yes:

  optapy-quickstarts/employee-scheduling/constraints.py

  Lines 71 to 77 in 3248a58

  	def one_shift_per_day(constraint_factory: ConstraintFactory):
  	return constraint_factory \
  	.for_each_unique_pair(Shift,
  	Joiners.equal(lambda shift: shift.employee),
  	Joiners.equal(lambda shift: shift.start.date())
  	) \
  	.penalize("Max one shift per day", HardSoftScore.ONE_HARD)

• The list of constraints are here:

  optapy-quickstarts/employee-scheduling/constraints.py

  Lines 28 to 36 in 3248a58

  	return [
  	required_skill(constraint_factory),
  	no_overlapping_shifts(constraint_factory),
  	at_least_10_hours_between_two_shifts(constraint_factory),
  	one_shift_per_day(constraint_factory),
  	unavailable_employee(constraint_factory),
  	desired_day_for_employee(constraint_factory),
  	undesired_day_for_employee(constraint_factory),
  	]

  ; for implicit constraints, a Shift cannot have two employees, and a Shift must have an employee in this model (in other models, a Shift can be unassigned).
• Objectives are prioritized by levels; in particular, OptaPy will try to maximize the hard score (which may have multiple levels), and then try to optimize the soft score (which also may have multiple levels). In employee-scheduling quickstart, there is only 1 hard and 1 soft level. For multiple constraints/objects on the same level, they are summed together.

[dietmarwo]

Thks a lot for the detailed explanations. In fact my own scheduling approach involves switching from Python to another language (C++), fortunately this works much smoother, there is almost no overhead. Will post a link to my tutorial when it is finished, so that you can compare the approaches. But I see that a performance comparison makes not much sense now. The whole idea of multi-objective optimization is that you avoid priorization but generate a set of non-dominated choices as result. I know this is unusual for scheduling optimizers.

[dietmarwo]

Here https://github.com/dietmarwo/fast-cma-es/blob/master/tutorials/Employee.adoc is the first draft of my employee scheduling tutorial. It uses a (hopefully) suprizing approach utilizing parallelized continous single- and multi-objective optimizers and numba to speed up the computation of the fitness function. These optimizers can do suprizing things when they can evaluate the fitness up to a million times / second. Of course this shouldn't be compared to the current state of OptaPy, but to the future one utilizing Java bytecode. Getting things fast in Python is not easy, I am working quite a while on this issue.

[Christopher-Chianelli]

I wonder if using the fitness function in your post with @easy_score_calculator will be faster. Unlike the constraint stream API (@constraint_provider), @easy_score_calculator (and @incremental_score_calculator) only calls the function once per score calculation (instead of 100+ times per score calculation), so the overhead cost of calling the Python code should almost gone.

OptaPlanner (and thus OptaPy) currently do not support Pareto scoring (https://www.optaplanner.org/docs/optaplanner/latest/score-calculation/score-calculation.html#paretoScoring).

[dietmarwo]

Not sure how to replace @constraint_provider by @easy_score_calculator, these implement different interfaces.

My questions regarding optapy are:

• Is

        .penalize('Desired day for employee', HardSoftScore.ONE_SOFT,
                  lambda shift, availability: get_shift_duration_in_minutes(shift))

a bug? Does it minimize the desired shifts instead of maximizing it?
Optapy seems to ignore the "DESIRED" soft constraint, probably because of this bug.

• Is the "no_overlapping_shifts" constraint redundant and covered by the
  "at_least_10_hours_between_two_shifts" constraint?

• How do I configure OptaPy to solve harder problems? Is it possible to switch algorithms?
  Or is the only option to increase the time limit?

• Does each run produce the same result? Using a stochastic solver generates a different solution
  for each run which means there is a choice. Is it possible to change the behaviour of OptaPy
  in this direction?

The reason you may want to apply a multi-objective optimizer is not only that you get a pareto-front,
but that it helps to optimize an additional second objective - for instance the standard deviation of
the shifts assigned to the employees.

My multi-objective optimizer found a solution with a nearly equal shift distribution.

desired shift days 4
shifts per employee [7, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 7, 7, 9]
min shifts per employee 7
mean shifts per employee 7.875
std shifts per employee 0.4841229182759271

Compare this to the OctaPy result:

desired shift days 0
shifts per employee [11, 13, 13, 13, 12, 14, 11, 12, 7, 4, 8, 5, 1, 0, 0, 2]
min shifts per employee 0
mean shifts per employee 7.875
std shifts per employee 4.998437255783052

Is it possible to define the standard deviation of
the shifts assigned to the employees as soft constraint in OctaPy?

I did the following modifications to
https://github.com/optapy/optapy-quickstarts/blob/stable/employee-scheduling/services.py
to create a more challanging task:

OPTIONAL_SKILLS = ["Anaesthetics", "Surgery", "Radiology"]
...
    INITIAL_ROSTER_LENGTH_IN_DAYS = 28
...
    for i in range(20):
        skills = pick_subset(OPTIONAL_SKILLS, random, 1, 4, 4)

• more optional skills: ["Anaesthetics", "Surgery", "Radiology"]
• roster length of 28 days:
• 20 employees
• skill distribution skills = pick_subset(OPTIONAL_SKILLS, random, 1, 4, 4)

I tested with several OptaPy time limits and got:

time spent (100056), best score (-1hard/-480soft), score calculation speed (84/sec) step total (280).
time spent (200053), best score (-1hard/-480soft), score calculation speed (61/sec) step total (609).
time spent (300029), best score (-1hard/-480soft), score calculation speed (46/sec) step total (755).
time spent (400011), best score (-1hard/-480soft), score calculation speed (52/sec) step total (1436).
time spent (600030), best score (-1hard/0soft), score calculation speed (55/sec) step total (2631).
time spent (800051), best score (-1hard/0soft), score calculation speed (35/sec) step total (2111).
time spent (1200084), best score (-1hard/0soft), score calculation speed (31/sec) step total (3068).
time spent (1600059), best score (-1hard/0soft), score calculation speed (47/sec) step total (6529).
time spent (2400029), best score (0hard/-2880soft), score calculation speed (38/sec) step total (8148).
time spent (3200127), best score (0hard/-1440soft), score calculation speed (37/sec) step total (10865).
time spent (4800145), best score (0hard/-480soft), score calculation speed (45/sec) step total (19716).
time spent (20000064), best score (0hard/0soft), score calculation speed (21/sec) step total (72491).

A valid solution needs several hours.

My own solver needs only about 70 seconds, may be the difference is because of the Python / Java overhead?
How long would the Java optimizer need for this task?

See https://github.com/dietmarwo/fast-cma-es/blob/master/tutorials/Employee.adoc for a summary of my experiments
and a description of my alternative "stochastic solver".

[Christopher-Chianelli]

• 'Desired day for employee' look like a bug; it should be a reward call, not a penalize call, and probably explains why no desired timeslots are picked
• Not redundant; if shifts were 1 hour long, then there are cases where the "no_overlapping_shifts" constraint will trigger and "at_least_10_hours_between_two_shifts" would not; and likewise, for non-overlapping shifts that are 1 hour apart, "at_least_10_hours_between_two_shifts" would trigger and "no_overlapping_shifts" would not.
• Visit the documentation; in particular the Construction Heuristics and Local Search configuration.
• By default, each run produce the same result for reproducibility; this make it easy to debug bugs since the same moves will be performed. You can change this behaviour by changing the environment mode to "NON_REPRODUCIBLE" see the environment mode section of the OptaPy documentation, or by changing the random seed used by the solver
• It is possible to define the standard deviation of the shifts assigned to the employees as soft constraint in OptaPy; this can be done like so:

def get_average_number_of_shifts_stream(constraint_factory):
    return constraint_factory.for_each(Shift) \
        .group_by(lambda shift: shift.employee, ConstraintCollectors.count()) \
        .group_by(ConstraintCollectors.average(lambda employee, count: count))

def get_number_of_employees_stream(constraint_factory):
    return constraint_factory.for_each(Employee) \
        .group_by(ConstraintCollectors.count())

def minimize_standard_deviation_of_assigned_shifts_per_employee(constraint_factory):
    return constraint_factory.for_each(Shift) \
        .group_by(lambda shift: shift.employee,  ConstraintCollectors.count()) \
        .join(get_average_number_of_shifts_stream(constraint_factory)) \
        .group_by(ConstraintCollectors.sum(lambda employee, assigned_shifts, mean_assigned_shifts: 100 * ((assigned_shifts - mean_assigned_shifts)**2))) \
        .join(get_number_of_employees_stream(constraint_factory)) \
        .penalize('minimize standard diviation', HardSoftScore.ONE_SOFT, lambda variance_sum, number_of_employees: math.ceil(variance_sum / number_of_employees))

This minimizes the variance (up to 2 decimal digits; if you want more precision, change the 100 to something larger), which also minimize the standard variation (you could add a sqrt to get standard variation if needed) (the 100 is used in the sum since it the value is changed to int to avoid problems caused by floating point math (in particular, it cannot be guaranteed that (x + y + z - y - z) == x in floating point math, which will cause score corruption).

The difference is almost certainly due to Python / Java overhead; look at the score calculation speed: 21/sec. That is extremely low and is mostly from transferring between java and python contexts a lot. For the equivalent OptaPlanner quickstart (https://github.com/kiegroup/optaplanner-quickstarts/tree/stable/use-cases/employee-scheduling), the score calculation speed for a larger problem on my computer is 63069/sec; for optapy, it is around 84/sec on a smaller problem (in short, at least a 700 times speed increase). The Java Optimizer would probably find a solution in under 10 second, but it hard to say for certain without knowing your computer specs.

To implement an @easy_score_calculator, all you need is a function to calculate the score for a given (possibly invalid) solution. From your Employee.adoc, it would look like this:

@easy_score_calculator
def fitness(solution):
        score = solution.fitness(solution.shift_list)  # unsure what x is; look like planning variables (employee the shift is assigned to)
        return SimpleScore.of(-score)

[Christopher-Chianelli]

(A side note: you should really use a HardSoftScore for this; right now, using the fitness function in your post, satisfying 10 DESIRED shifts would allow 2 shifts to overlap, which is almost certainly not a desired result)

[dietmarwo]

Thanks for your explanations.

1. Tried

solver_config = solver_config_create_from_xml_file(pathlib.Path('solverConfig.xml'))
solver_config\
    .withSolutionClass(EmployeeSchedule)\
    .withEntityClasses(Shift)\
    .withConstraintProviderClass(employee_scheduling_constraints)\
    .withTerminationSpentLimit(Duration.ofSeconds(100)

solverConfig.xml:

<solver xmlns="https://www.optaplanner.org/xsd/solver" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance"
    xsi:schemaLocation="https://www.optaplanner.org/xsd/solver https://www.optaplanner.org/xsd/solver/solver.xsd">
  <environmentMode>FAST_ASSERT</environmentMode>
</solver>

and still always get the same result:

desired shift days 0
shifts per employee [11, 13, 13, 13, 12, 14, 11, 12, 7, 4, 8, 5, 1, 0, 0, 2]
min shifts per employee 0
mean shifts per employee 7.875
std shifts per employee 4.998437255783052

2. algorithm config also go into 'solverConfig.xml' ? No solver_config.withStrategy(... ?

3. tried

        .reward('Desired day for employee', HardSoftScore.ONE_SOFT,
                  lambda shift, availability: get_shift_duration_in_minutes(shift))

and got

desired shift days 5
shifts per employee [11, 13, 13, 13, 12, 14, 12, 12, 7, 4, 8, 5, 1, 0, 0, 1]
min shifts per employee 0
mean shifts per employee 7.875
std shifts per employee 5.12195031213697

so this works.

4. tried your minimize_standard_deviation_of_assigned_shifts_per_employee code and got:

File "/home/xxx/ana39/lib/python3.9/site-packages/optapy/optaplanner_api_wrappers.py", line 28, in init
self.delegate = SolverManager.create(solver_config)
TypeError: No matching overloads found for org.optaplanner.constraint.streams.drools.bi.DroolsAbstractBiConstraintStream.join(PythonUniConstraintStream,org.optaplanner.core.api.score.stream.tri.TriJoiner[]), options are:
public default org.optaplanner.core.api.score.stream.tri.TriConstraintStream org.optaplanner.constraint.streams.bi.InnerBiConstraintStream.join(java.lang.Class,org.optaplanner.core.api.score.stream.tri.TriJoiner[])
public final org.optaplanner.core.api.score.stream.tri.TriConstraintStream org.optaplanner.constraint.streams.drools.bi.DroolsAbstractBiConstraintStream.join(org.optaplanner.core.api.score.stream.uni.UniConstraintStream,org.optaplanner.core.api.score.stream.tri.TriJoiner[])
public default org.optaplanner.core.api.score.stream.tri.TriConstraintStream org.optaplanner.core.api.score.stream.bi.BiConstraintStream.join(org.optaplanner.core.api.score.stream.uni.UniConstraintStream,org.optaplanner.core.api.score.stream.tri.TriJoiner,org.optaplanner.core.api.score.stream.tri.TriJoiner,org.optaplanner.core.api.score.stream.tri.TriJoiner,org.optaplanner.core.api.score.stream.tri.TriJoiner)
public default org.optaplanner.core.api.score.stream.tri.TriConstraintStream org.optaplanner.core.api.score.stream.bi.BiConstraintStream.join(org.optaplanner.core.api.score.stream.uni.UniConstraintStream,org.optaplanner.core.api.score.stream.tri.TriJoiner,org.optaplanner.core.api.score.stream.tri.TriJoiner,org.optaplanner.core.api.score.stream.tri.TriJoiner)
public default org.optaplanner.core.api.score.stream.tri.TriConstraintStream org.optaplanner.core.api.score.stream.bi.BiConstraintStream.join(org.optaplanner.core.api.score.stream.uni.UniConstraintStream,org.optaplanner.core.api.score.stream.tri.TriJoiner,org.optaplanner.core.api.score.stream.tri.TriJoiner)
public default org.optaplanner.core.api.score.stream.tri.TriConstraintStream org.optaplanner.core.api.score.stream.bi.BiConstraintStream.join(org.optaplanner.core.api.score.stream.uni.UniConstraintStream,org.optaplanner.core.api.score.stream.tri.TriJoiner)
public default org.optaplanner.core.api.score.stream.tri.TriConstraintStream org.optaplanner.core.api.score.stream.bi.BiConstraintStream.join(org.optaplanner.core.api.score.stream.uni.UniConstraintStream)
public default org.optaplanner.core.api.score.stream.tri.TriConstraintStream org.optaplanner.core.api.score.stream.bi.BiConstraintStream.join(java.lang.Class,org.optaplanner.core.api.score.stream.tri.TriJoiner,org.optaplanner.core.api.score.stream.tri.TriJoiner,org.optaplanner.core.api.score.stream.tri.TriJoiner,org.optaplanner.core.api.score.stream.tri.TriJoiner)
public default org.optaplanner.core.api.score.stream.tri.TriConstraintStream org.optaplanner.core.api.score.stream.bi.BiConstraintStream.join(java.lang.Class,org.optaplanner.core.api.score.stream.tri.TriJoiner,org.optaplanner.core.api.score.stream.tri.TriJoiner,org.optaplanner.core.api.score.stream.tri.TriJoiner)
public default org.optaplanner.core.api.score.stream.tri.TriConstraintStream org.optaplanner.core.api.score.stream.bi.BiConstraintStream.join(java.lang.Class,org.optaplanner.core.api.score.stream.tri.TriJoiner,org.optaplanner.core.api.score.stream.tri.TriJoiner)
public default org.optaplanner.core.api.score.stream.tri.TriConstraintStream org.optaplanner.core.api.score.stream.bi.BiConstraintStream.join(java.lang.Class,org.optaplanner.core.api.score.stream.tri.TriJoiner)
public default org.optaplanner.core.api.score.stream.tri.TriConstraintStream org.optaplanner.core.api.score.stream.bi.BiConstraintStream.join(java.lang.Class)

5. regarding performance: will try the java version after my vacation (in 2 weeks from now)

[Christopher-Chianelli]

1. Should be set to NON_REPRODUCIBLE, with an optional random seed:

<solver xmlns="https://www.optaplanner.org/xsd/solver" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance"
    xsi:schemaLocation="https://www.optaplanner.org/xsd/solver https://www.optaplanner.org/xsd/solver/solver.xsd">
  <environmentMode>NON_REPRODUCIBLE</environmentMode>
  <randomSeed>RANDOM_SEED</randomSeed>
</solver>

2. Algorithm can be configured with both XML and Python; the relevant config classes are in optapy.config, you use withPhases to set the phases/algorithm OptaPy will run

3. Look like a bug; I'll fix it

[dietmarwo]

1: Tried "NON_REPRODUCIBLE", still get always the same result. I think NON_REPRODUCIBLE is more targeted to avoid spending additional effort in generating reproducible runs. It is not targeted for diversity of results. So it seems this is a disadvantage of optaplanner compared to a standard continous optimizer https://github.com/dietmarwo/fast-cma-es/blob/master/tutorials/Employee.adoc#single-objective-optimization .

2. Here is a list of documantation issues I observed trying optapy:

• No "Search the docs" on https://www.optapy.org/docs/latest/planner-introduction/planner-introduction.html

• Missing section https://www.optaplanner.org/docs/optaplanner/latest/benchmarking-and-tweaking/benchmarking-and-tweaking.html for optapy

• No "code completion" in the IDE because of the Python/Java bridge (works fine in optaplanner)

• No complete Python API description (equivalent to https://docs.optaplanner.org/latest/optaplanner-javadoc/)

• No semantics in the Python code in https://github.com/optapy/optapy/tree/main/optapy-core/src/main/python - its all in
  the java code.

This means you have almost no chance to figure out how to use optapy without checking the java doc https://www.optaplanner.org/docs/optaplanner/latest/, and then you cannot be sure what exactly works in Python and what is not implemented yet.

3. Progress regarding your minimize_standard_deviation_of_assigned_shifts_per_employee after updating to optapy-8.23.0a0. Now I get:

java.util.concurrent.ExecutionException: java.util.concurrent.ExecutionException: java.lang.IllegalStateException: Solving failed for problemId (1).
NOT_SOLVING
Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "DefaultScoreManager.java", line 54, in org.optaplanner.core.impl.score.DefaultScoreManager.updateScore
  File "DroolsConstraintStreamScoreDirector.java", line 86, in org.optaplanner.constraint.streams.drools.DroolsConstraintStreamScoreDirector.calculateScore
  File "StatefulKnowledgeSessionImpl.java", line 1073, in org.drools.kiesession.session.StatefulKnowledgeSessionImpl.fireAllRules
  File "StatefulKnowledgeSessionImpl.java", line 1081, in org.drools.kiesession.session.StatefulKnowledgeSessionImpl.fireAllRules
  File "StatefulKnowledgeSessionImpl.java", line 1090, in org.drools.kiesession.session.StatefulKnowledgeSessionImpl.internalFireAllRules
  File "DefaultAgenda.java", line 687, in org.drools.kiesession.agenda.DefaultAgenda.fireAllRules
  File "DefaultAgenda.java", line 695, in org.drools.kiesession.agenda.DefaultAgenda.internalFireAllRules
  File "DefaultAgenda.java", line 748, in org.drools.kiesession.agenda.DefaultAgenda.fireLoop
  File "SequentialRuleEvaluator.java", line 43, in org.drools.core.concurrent.SequentialRuleEvaluator.evaluateAndFire
  File "AbstractRuleEvaluator.java", line 33, in org.drools.core.concurrent.AbstractRuleEvaluator.internalEvaluateAndFire
  File "RuleExecutor.java", line 101, in org.drools.core.phreak.RuleExecutor.evaluateNetworkAndFire
  File "RuleExecutor.java", line 454, in org.drools.core.phreak.RuleExecutor.innerFireActivation
  File "LambdaConsequence.java", line 74, in org.drools.modelcompiler.consequence.LambdaConsequence.evaluate
  File "Block4.java", line 40, in org.drools.model.functions.Block4$Impl.execute
  File "BiRuleContext.java", line 46, in org.optaplanner.constraint.streams.drools.common.BiRuleContext.lambda$newRuleBuilder$2e50f6b5$1
  File "com.sun.proxy.$Proxy41.java", line -1, in com.sun.proxy.$Proxy41.applyAsInt
  File "org.jpype.proxy.JPypeProxy.java", line -1, in org.jpype.proxy.JPypeProxy.invoke
  File "org.jpype.proxy.JPypeProxy.java", line -2, in org.jpype.proxy.JPypeProxy.hostInvoke
  File "org.jpype.JPypeContext.java", line -1, in org.jpype.JPypeContext.createException
org.jpype.PyExceptionProxy: org.jpype.PyExceptionProxy

The above exception was the direct cause of the following exception:

Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "DefaultScoreManager.java", line 54, in org.optaplanner.core.impl.score.DefaultScoreManager.updateScore
  File "DroolsConstraintStreamScoreDirector.java", line 86, in org.optaplanner.constraint.streams.drools.DroolsConstraintStreamScoreDirector.calculateScore
  File "StatefulKnowledgeSessionImpl.java", line 1073, in org.drools.kiesession.session.StatefulKnowledgeSessionImpl.fireAllRules
  File "StatefulKnowledgeSessionImpl.java", line 1081, in org.drools.kiesession.session.StatefulKnowledgeSessionImpl.fireAllRules
  File "StatefulKnowledgeSessionImpl.java", line 1090, in org.drools.kiesession.session.StatefulKnowledgeSessionImpl.internalFireAllRules
  File "DefaultAgenda.java", line 687, in org.drools.kiesession.agenda.DefaultAgenda.fireAllRules
  File "DefaultAgenda.java", line 695, in org.drools.kiesession.agenda.DefaultAgenda.internalFireAllRules
  File "DefaultAgenda.java", line 748, in org.drools.kiesession.agenda.DefaultAgenda.fireLoop
  File "SequentialRuleEvaluator.java", line 43, in org.drools.core.concurrent.SequentialRuleEvaluator.evaluateAndFire
  File "AbstractRuleEvaluator.java", line 33, in org.drools.core.concurrent.AbstractRuleEvaluator.internalEvaluateAndFire
  File "RuleExecutor.java", line 101, in org.drools.core.phreak.RuleExecutor.evaluateNetworkAndFire
  File "RuleExecutor.java", line 460, in org.drools.core.phreak.RuleExecutor.innerFireActivation
  File "DefaultAgenda.java", line 935, in org.drools.kiesession.agenda.DefaultAgenda.handleException
  File "DefaultConsequenceExceptionHandler.java", line 39, in org.drools.core.runtime.rule.impl.DefaultConsequenceExceptionHandler.handleException
Exception: Java Exception

The above exception was the direct cause of the following exception:

Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "/home/xxx/ana39/lib/python3.9/site-packages/optapy/optaplanner_api_wrappers.py", line 170, in _wrap_call
    return function(wrapped_problem)
  File "/home/xxx/ana39/lib/python3.9/site-packages/optapy/optaplanner_api_wrappers.py", line 183, in <lambda>
    score = self._wrap_call(lambda wrapped_solution: self._java_updateScore(wrapped_solution), solution)
org.kie.api.runtime.rule.ConsequenceException: Exception executing consequence for rule "minimize standard diviation" in org.optaplanner.optapy.generated.class3.domain.EmployeeSchedule: org.jpype.PyExceptionProxy

The above exception was the direct cause of the following exception:

Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "/home/xxx/stock/optapy-quickstart/employee-scheduling/services.py", line 607, in <module>
    save_solution()
  File "/home/xxx/stock/optapy-quickstart/employee-scheduling/services.py", line 347, in save_solution
    score = score_manager.updateScore(solution)
  File "/home/xxx/ana39/lib/python3.9/site-packages/optapy/optaplanner_api_wrappers.py", line 183, in updateScore
    score = self._wrap_call(lambda wrapped_solution: self._java_updateScore(wrapped_solution), solution)
  File "/home/xxx/ana39/lib/python3.9/site-packages/optapy/optaplanner_api_wrappers.py", line 177, in _wrap_call
    raise RuntimeError(error_message) from e
RuntimeError: An error occurred when getting the score. This can occur when functions take the wrong number of parameters (ex: a setter that does not take exactly one parameter) or by a function returning an incompatible return type (ex: returning a str in a filter, which expects a bool). This can also occur when an exception is raised when evaluating constraints/getters/setters.

[Christopher-Chianelli]

• Regarding the search the docs issue, thanks for notifying; look like there was a problem generating the search index; will fix
• Benchmarking and tweaking section does not exist since optapy-benchmark does not exist yet. Benchmarker support will be added at a later date, and with it, the benchmarker section of the docs
• PyCharm does has code completion, but you need to specify the type in the function:

def my_constraint(constraint_factory: ConstraintFactory):
    constraint_factory.for_each(Entity) \
       ...

• Type stubs are generated for all OptaPlanner API classes (which also translate their Javadoc into Python docstrings) (see org-stubs). Additionally, each python function should have types and docstrings explaining it usage (and thus accessible with help(optapy)). I would need to research generating Python technical docs from those docstrings.
• See above (docstrings); In what way the current docstrings failing you?

Regarding minimize_standard_deviation_of_assigned_shifts_per_employee, I think the issue is a type error (hard to see because JPype hide the exception; with the translator work, provided the code can be translated (i.e. not implemented in C), the actual exception should show up, and I can put warnings when the code is being compiled (ex: attribute 'missing_attribute' does not exist). I will post a corrected version once I actually test on my end.

[Christopher-Chianelli]

Documentation search issue is now fixed; look like antora-lunr did a backward incompatible change, and the GitHub action to generate docs is set to use the latest version of antora and antora-lunr, which in turns broke the search function.

[dietmarwo]

Thks for the fix. And thks for the hint regarding PyCharm. Used Eclipse before, with Pycharm code completion works.
Waiting for the corrected version of
minimize_standard_deviation_of_assigned_shifts_per_employee
since I would like to see how far the standard deviation can be lowered.

[Christopher-Chianelli]

Sorry for the (very late) reply; been working on the bytecode translator and forgot about this convo; Adapting from https://stackoverflow.com/a/74018711/9698517 , the corrected version of minimize_standard_deviation_of_assigned_shifts_per_employee is:

def get_employee_number_of_shift_pairs(constraint_factory):
    return (
        constraint_factory.for_each(Shift)
            .group_by(lambda shift: shift.employee, ConstraintCollectors.count())
    )


def get_average_number_of_shifts_stream(constraint_factory):
    return (
        get_employee_number_of_shift_pairs(constraint_factory)
            .group_by(ConstraintCollectors.average(lambda employee, count: count))
    )


def minimize_standard_deviation_of_assigned_shifts_per_employee(constraint_factory: ConstraintFactory):
    return (
        get_employee_number_of_shift_pairs(constraint_factory)
            .join(get_average_number_of_shifts_stream(constraint_factory))
            .group_by(ConstraintCollectors.compose(
                          ConstraintCollectors.sum(lambda user, load, avg: (load - avg)**2),
                          ConstraintCollectors.count_tri(),
                          lambda diff_sum, count: int(((diff_sum / max(1, count)) * 100))
            ))
            .penalize('Minimize variance', HardSoftScore.ONE_SOFT,
                           lambda variance: variance)
    )