Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Package tools for MM calculations with CP2K #150

Merged
merged 42 commits into from
Mar 13, 2020
Merged

Package tools for MM calculations with CP2K #150

merged 42 commits into from
Mar 13, 2020

Conversation

BvB93
Copy link
Collaborator

@BvB93 BvB93 commented Mar 4, 2020

See #148.

An example of the new cp2k_mm workflow is provided in the issue above.

Major

  • Changed all .json files into the .yaml format (related to Improve the qmflows templates system #131).
  • Fixed an issue where generic parameters were not correctly parsed if the respective .json/.yaml file had a list with >2 elements.
  • Added the CP2KMM Packages subclass and the matching cp2k_mm instance.
  • Added three sets of generic keywords: "prm" (.prm file), "psf" (.psf file) and all the keys in qmflows.cp2k_utils.CP2K_KEYS_ALIAS (CP2K forcefield parameters).
  • Added the "periodic" generic keyword to CP2K and CP2KMM.
  • Added new "cp2k_mm" templates.

Minor

  • Changed the signatures of Package.prerun() and Pacakge.postrun().
  • Added a new test dependency: nlesc-nano/AssertionLib.
  • Moved __version__.py to ./src/qmflows.
  • Updated setup.cfg.
  • Changed the indentation in all templates from 2 to 4 spaces.
  • Added new tests.
  • Added the test_utils module with utilities for testing QMFlows.
  • Updated and cleaned up the QMFlows documentation.

@BvB93 BvB93 self-assigned this Mar 4, 2020
@BvB93 BvB93 requested a review from felipeZ March 12, 2020 16:49
@BvB93 BvB93 marked this pull request as ready for review March 12, 2020 16:50
@BvB93 BvB93 removed the Work in Progress Work in Progress label Mar 12, 2020
Copy link
Contributor

@felipeZ felipeZ left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I like the changes 👍 Also, in general I think it would be a better idea to make shorter PR because it becomes difficult to follow so many changes.
I have left some comments/question

@@ -45,6 +44,7 @@ def _get_result(promised_object: PromisedObject, job: Type[Job]) -> Result:


@pytest.mark.slow
@delete_output
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It simplifies a lot the testing code, great!

@BvB93
Copy link
Collaborator Author

BvB93 commented Mar 12, 2020

Yeah, I'll try to keep em a little bit more "compact" next time...

Copy link
Contributor

@felipeZ felipeZ left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

great work!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants