Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
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
Qcarchive update #187
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Qcarchive update #187
Changes from 15 commits
88c66cb
6f8198e
3e5a58f
94add0c
908c35f
2afcd1d
aa41891
dc7b10c
bc3e983
9cb3189
59dd1a8
cb28a48
f48ae7c
5f638fd
86042f3
3861bd7
4821aad
a6a4cdf
54ce464
a05bff7
87e9d5a
384bcc1
cac1776
01c9de5
3cf37d0
3f32536
3a3700c
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@kntkb or @yuanqing-wang thoughts?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
So I've been trying to figure out the structure of the torsion drive datasets (since I have not looked at them really yet prior to this). Considering the example dataset I used in test (I'll put the code below), each angle has n-number of unique initial conformations that are then optimized. In this case, there are 4 configurations (each that has their own trajectory). So I suppose choosing the first vs the last is somewhat irrelevant (I was initially thinking this was a set of chained optimizations, hence my comment...don't ask why I was thinking that).
Should each of these conformations be considered and added to the datasets rather than just arbitrarily picking one?
looking at the actual configurations:
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I don't know off the top of my head, but I've played around with different QCArchive workflows in the past. I may have some notes left somewhere, so I'll catch up shortly (tomorrow?).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Oh, the api and the way you access the data changed using qcportal v0.5...
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think in the older version of qcportal, "get_final_molecule()" just picked the first one in the array. The full array was still part of the data record, just you had to dig through the qcvars or something to access. From conversations with Ben, there was a lot of trying to force records into a very rigid schema in the old version; he opted to break the schema in a lot of cases to just make it easier to access the relevant information (and make it clearer what information is available).
As I mentioned in an early comment, it seems that for each angle, multiple (in this case 4) independent starting configurations were used. It seems like it would be better to have the code return data for each replicate, but I'm not sure how this would impact any workflows that use this function.