J. George
J. George
@JPBergsma I am not sure. I personally wouldn't want any code to handle this automatically for me as I would fear unexpected side effects. Are there Maintainer opinions? @shyuep @mkhorton...
There is a second notebook. This one is not needed and outdated
@naik-aakash could you take a look?
In general, it would be great if the tutorials would be directly tested on a new pymatgen version. In the current way, we have a very hard time to update...
@naik-aakash maybe (after the Christmas break 👀), you can regenerate a cohpcar with the latest Lobster version. Then, we can check this in detail
@esoteric-ephemera Great! Even though the outside usage of `ForcefieldResult` might be limited. Let's maybe still alias - just in case.
@Andrew-S-Rosen I feel this might be a general problem in the future, especially with all the force fields🫠 @utf maybe, we should think about installing and testing the forcefields separately...
@janosh I would be happy about a deprecation period in such a case. We are using these Makers quite a lot and adapting codes/documentation will take time.
@esoteric-ephemera @janosh I am fine with deprecation. I would just prefer a deprecation period in this case.
In that context: should we document this and a few other of our new workflows that are not VASP-based more clearly? I think a lot of people have interest in...