-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 72
better "extras" passing in Molecule for EFP #124
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
base: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
|
What does symbols and geometry look like for EFP? Can we fake it for a normal molecule? A blank molecule should be doable, I think we only need to change the geometry validation. |
|
whole thing would look something like the below.
|
|
Looks pretty close to a QM molecule can we pass it in to the canonical constructor with validation off? |
|
Actually, I think latest commit will do the trick wrt empty QM mol. I had put the "minimal" in the wrong place before and hadn't revisited until you ok'd the empty Mol. |
enable_qm=Trueisn't changing anything -- molparse parses QM aspects of the molecule string (enable_efp=Falseby default)missing_enabled_return_qm='minimal'bit is changing from the default (error) to (minimal). this can't do much at present as other things prevent an empty QMmodels.Moleculefor the case of efp-only.'extras', then one set is going to get dropped, probably to someone's surprise. may want to consider replacing with a recursive update, likeupdate_with_errorwithout the error.