Hooker scheduling generators

[mmghannam]

Includes generators for all instances in problem sets described in here. Closes #98, #100, #101, #102.

[codecov-io]

Codecov Report

Merging #104 (09eba2d) into main (23d2fb0) will not change coverage.
The diff coverage is 100.00%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##              main      #104    +/-   ##
==========================================
  Coverage   100.00%   100.00%            
==========================================
  Files           48        48            
  Lines         1022      1138   +116     
==========================================
+ Hits          1022      1138   +116     

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
geco/mips/scheduling/generic.py	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
geco/mips/scheduling/heinz.py	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
geco/mips/scheduling/hooker.py	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
geco/mips/utilities/generic.py	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 23d2fb0...09eba2d. Read the comment docs.

[CharJon]

I wrote a prototype to see whether or not I prefer the heavily "lambdad" param generation over a less generalized one.
See c_params_generator_alternative and the two functions above.
I think we should use the more verbose one, as it is easier to see whats going on, even at the cost of more code. The verbose implementation can be checked at one glance.

[mmghannam]

I wrote a prototype to see whether or not I prefer the heavily "lambdad" param generation over a less generalized one.
See c_params_generator_alternative and the two functions above.
I think we should use the more verbose one, as it is easier to see whats going on, even at the cost of more code. The verbose implementation can be checked at one glance.

I migrated the old code to the new way.
Since this pull request contains a lot of changes already, what about we merge the parameter generation methods and add the missing MIP formulations in other pull-request?