openff-recharge
openff-recharge copied to clipboard
Re-jig BCCs to be more specific
Description
Re-do OpenEye BCC collection
Status
- [ ] Ready to go
Codecov Report
Patch coverage: 100.00% and project coverage change: -0.02 :warning:
Comparison is base (
a97eb10) 84.06% compared to head (f1c0957) 84.05%.
Additional details and impacted files
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #131 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 84.06% 84.05% -0.02%
==========================================
Files 37 37
Lines 2021 2019 -2
==========================================
- Hits 1699 1697 -2
Misses 322 322
| Impacted Files | Coverage Δ | |
|---|---|---|
| openff/recharge/charges/bcc.py | 94.26% <100.00%> (-0.10%) |
:arrow_down: |
:umbrella: View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
:loudspeaker: Do you have feedback about the report comment? Let us know in this issue.
The "correctness" is how well it corresponds to how OpenEye assigns things. There's a benchmark in scripts/validation, although it's too expensive to run in CI. The new parameters here do somewhat better than the original (and include phosphorus), but not perfectly. I'll see if I can a) improve the smirks a bit more and b) incorporate some of it into CI.
original-am1-bcc.json is what used to be there, it probably should be moved into a legacy file.
If I'm following the paper trail, scripts/convert-am1-bcc/generate_original_am1bcc.py is to be compared to the file now at scripts/convert-am1-bcc/legacy/convert.py? GitHub's UI doesn't pick up on this but I can just diff them locally.
That's right :)
There are some commented-out patterns in GENERAL_ATOM_CODES - intentional or temporary?
These were intentionally commented out to leave a bit of a trail in case the more general patterns should be reverted back to the stricter ones... thanks to your feedback I've realised this PR as a whole is probably still a bit premature.