Originally posted by: kcapt

Hello good people!

As I said before I'm new to Cplex and programming languages so I'm sorry in advance If I don't understand something.

The example sched_jobshopflex works wonderfull for jobs that have 3 or more operations, and for that I'm thankfull.

However, when a job has only 2 operations ( Position 0 and Position 1). I want to create a this restriction:

When a job has got only 2 operations.

Cplex can choose the first machine to perform the first operation (Position 0).

However, the second operation (Position 1) must be carried out on a machine that is dependent position 0.

To be more precise, when a job has got ONLY 2 OPERATIONS it can be either one of these cases:

• Machine 1 perfoms the first operation (position 0) and the machine 6 perfomns the second (position 1).
• Machine 2 perfoms the first operation (position 0) and the machine 7 perfomns the second (position 1).
• Machine 3 perfoms the first operation (position 0) and the machine 8 perfomns the second (position 1).

Take a look in the image below, it will help to understand.

I have also attached the files. Thanks!

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have tried to do something like this but this won't work...

forall (j in Jobs, m1 in Modes, m2 in Modes: m1.opId==j && m2.opId==1+m1.opId , o1 in Ops, o2 in Ops: o1.jobId==j && o2.jobId==j && o1.pos==0  && o2.pos==1) 
            if(m1.mch==2){
                    m2.mch==7;
                    }
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Can a alternative opl constrain or a presenceOf solve this problem? I'm really lost...

Originally posted by: PhilippeLaborie

Sure, here you should use constraints between the presence of interval variables.For instance if itv_0_i denotes the (possible) execution of first operation to machine i and itv_1_j the (possible) execution of second operation to machine j, then you would add constraints:
 

presenceOf(itv_0_1) == presenceOf(itv_1_6)
presenceOf(itv_0_2) == presenceOf(itv_1_7)
presenceOf(itv_0_3) == presenceOf(itv_1_8)

This way, if the first operation is allocated to machine 1 (itv_0_1 is the one selected to be present by the alternative constraint), then necessarily, the second operation will be allocated to machine 6 (as the equality constraint on presence, will enforce itv_1_6 to be present).

This is the classical way to formulate dependency between resource allocation in CP Optimizer.

Originally posted by: kcapt

Yes, now it starts to make some sense. But in this case I should adapt the presenceOf(<TUPLE>) ==presenceOf(<TUPLE>), right? Is there any example of PresenceOf with tuples?

Correct me If I'm wrong, in this case I'll have to compare the presenceOf machines in Modes (check the image) :

  forall (j in Encomendas,o1 in Ops, o2 in Ops: o1.jobId==j && o2.jobId==j && o2.pos==1+o1.pos)

       forall(m1 in Modes, m2 in Modes: m2.opId==1+m1.opId)
               presenceOf(<m1.opId,   1  ,m1.pt>) == presenceOf(<m2.opId,  6   ,m2.pt>);

               presenceOf(<m1.opId,   2  ,m1.pt>) == presenceOf(<m2.opId,  7   ,m2.pt>);

               presenceOf(<m1.opId,  3  ,m1.pt>) == presenceOf(<m2.opId,  8   ,m2.pt>);

Sorry, I know this code has got many erros...

Thank you!

(Note: the processing times are allways the same, not sure if that can help in this case)

Originally posted by: PhilippeLaborie

No, presenceOf(x) is a constraint, it should be posted on decision variables, here interval variables. So something like:

presenceOf(modes[md1]) == presenceOf(modes[md2]);

Where md1 and md2 are tuples corresponding to the adequate combinations of operations and machines.

Originally posted by: kcapt

Sorry for the late reply but it did work! Thanks.

Both 1 and 2 works, which one do you think it's better to use ?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  1 -forall(md1 in Modes, md2 in Modes: md2.opId==1+md1.opId && md2.mch==5+md1.mch)    

(or)
   2-  //forall(o1 in Ops, o2 in Ops,md1 in Modes, md2 in Modes: o2.pos==1+o1.pos && md2.opId==1+md1.opId && md2.mch==5+md1.mch)         
           c7:
      presenceOf(modes[md1]) == presenceOf(modes[md2]);

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Again, thank you very much!

Originally posted by: PhilippeLaborie

In the end, the CPO model will be the same I think, but version 1 looks more efficient from an OPL point of view as the scope of the iteration (without the filtering condition) is smaller...