-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 10
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
Fix oct topology molecule name #174
Conversation
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## develop #174 +/- ##
===========================================
- Coverage 78.90% 78.88% -0.02%
===========================================
Files 11 11
Lines 1692 1691 -1
Branches 269 269
===========================================
- Hits 1335 1334 -1
- Misses 274 275 +1
+ Partials 83 82 -1
📣 We’re building smart automated test selection to slash your CI/CD build times. Learn more |
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.
Why did this work in the past? Did we use custom top files??
Can you add tests, please? We probably only need to run grompp, something like the first stage of the equilibrium workflow.
@orbeckst It only raised the error when gromacs wanted to replace some solvent molecules to add ions, which would recognize the molecule name from the When dealing with neutral molecules (SAMPL), it wouldn't need to replace solvent molecules, so no error was raised. But when the molecule has charge, such as Rick's, the error is raised. To test this we need a charged molecule. Maybe I add a sodium ion system for the tests? |
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.
There are various issues related to ions #97 #85 and in the docs I said that charged molecules are currently no supported. Let's not start with ions right here, at least not as a test case for a FEP calculation.
For a test it then you could add a test that builds an octanol system (using Goct.solvate()
etc) with options to add 4 Na and 4 Cl — we don't have to run the system, just checking that it generates it and that it contains the right number of ions afterwards.
Please also update CHANGES.
Great that you added the tests. The octanol-ion ones fail for most GROMACS versions, though. The output is not very informative, though, so I have no idea what's going wrong. |
I'm going to run a local test starting with gromacs wrapper's solvate function. |
@orbeckst I think the problem is due to that Here's the source code of
|
That makes sense. The concentration calculation wouldn't make any sense with non-water solvents. However, I am not even sure that the GW code works with all water models – do they all actually call the oxygen OW?? Does your change still work with the mixed solvent? Lines 637 to 649 in 43485dd
This issues looks as if it's tangled up with how to deal with ions properly. My understanding is that it does not limit the current functionality, right? Therefore, we can push this to a later milestone. |
I think the current version of groamcs wrapper's solvate function with concentration input only works with some specific water models. For the test itself, we need a update for gromcas wrapper to support np, nn inputs, and we don't need to think about ion concentration in octanol. It still works with met octanol. In the topology files of mixed octanol, water molecules were named as |
Can you please raise an issue for GW solvate to support nn/np and mention this PR, so that we don't forget? Thanks! |
@VOD555 is this a PR we should get finished for a 0.8.0 release? |
@orbeckst It's not necessary for normal use of MDPOW (for neutral molecules), so I think it can be finished after 0.8.0. And we still need a gromacswrapper supports nn and np input. |
Fix #154
In
itp
files for dry octanol, the molecule name inatom
section doesn't match the one inmolecule
section.So, here, we replace OcOH with SOL to match the molecule names.