Fix batch_processing GLOA bounds

[bernalde]

Summary

• Add finite source-derived bounds for batch_processing.cycleTime_log.
• Preserve the existing build_model() API and solver-free construction path.
• Add focused regression tests for the derived bounds, FBBT, Big-M/Hull transformations, and an opt-in GAMS/BARON GLOA smoke.

Tests run

• /home/bernalde/.pixi/bin/pixi run pytest tests/test_batch_processing.py -v --tb=short
  • Result: 4 passed, 1 skipped.
• /home/bernalde/.pixi/bin/pixi run env GDPLIB_RUN_GAMS_BARON_TESTS=1 pytest tests/test_batch_processing.py::test_batch_processing_gloa_runs_with_gams_baron -v --tb=short
  • Result: 1 passed.
• /home/bernalde/.pixi/bin/pixi run pytest tests/test_module_imports.py -v --tb=short
  • Result: 68 passed.
• /home/bernalde/.pixi/bin/pixi run test
  • Result: 288 passed, 2 skipped.
• /home/bernalde/.pixi/bin/pixi run lint
  • Result: passed with exit code 0. The non-blocking flake8 pass printed existing --exit-zero style statistics.
• /home/bernalde/.pixi/bin/pixi run gdplib-benchmark run --instances batch_processing --strategies gdpopt.gloa --solver-profile gams-local --timelimit 120 --run-id issue61_postbounds_gloa_local_20260511
  • Result: GLOA returned a normal maxTimeLimit solver result with finite lower/upper bounds instead of the pre-patch FBBT assertion. The CLI then exited while generating summaries because generate_benchmark_summary_all is not importable in this checkout.

Notes

• A pre-patch GLOA/BARON reproduction emitted missing-upper-bound warnings for every cycleTime_log[...] variable and failed in Pyomo FBBT with AssertionError.
• I did not run a full 3600-second benchmark campaign; the focused solver smoke verifies the model-level bound failure no longer occurs.
• Follow-up issue Plan PyPI release workflow and Pixi platform support #104 was reviewed and is closed release/Pixi planning work, so this PR intentionally does not change packaging, release, or Pixi platform policy.

Closes #61

[bernalde]

No blocking issues found.

Review summary:

1. Blocking issues: none.
2. Nonblocking issues: none requiring inline comments.
3. Questions: none.
4. Tests run and outcomes:
   • /home/bernalde/.pixi/bin/pixi run pytest tests/test_batch_processing.py -v --tb=short: 4 passed, 1 skipped.
   • /home/bernalde/.pixi/bin/pixi run env GDPLIB_RUN_GAMS_BARON_TESTS=1 pytest tests/test_batch_processing.py::test_batch_processing_gloa_runs_with_gams_baron -v --tb=short: 1 passed.
   • /home/bernalde/.pixi/bin/pixi run test: 288 passed, 2 skipped.
   • /home/bernalde/.pixi/bin/pixi run lint: passed with exit code 0; the broad flake8 command printed existing --exit-zero style statistics.
   • git diff --check origin/main...HEAD: passed.
5. Merge recommendation: the PR is merge-ready from this review. Since I am the PR author, GitHub does not allow me to provide an eligible approval; an eligible maintainer should approve before merge.

[bernalde]

Comment follow-up status:

• Commits pushed: none. There were no unresolved review threads or discussion comments requiring changes.
• Main changes made: none.
• Tests run: none in this pass because no code, test, or documentation changes were made. Existing PR checks remain green: lint/style-and-typos, test-python-3.10, test-python-3.11, test-python-3.12, coverage-report, and test-pip-installation.
• Comments intentionally not addressed: the only review entry is the prior top-level review summary; it does not request a change.
• Remaining risks or follow-up items: an eligible maintainer still needs to provide the formal approval because the existing review was submitted by the PR author.