Jonathon Misiewicz
Jonathon Misiewicz
> Would y'all like this PR to include updated output.ref files for the tests or would a separate test updating PR be better? I don't see anything in the" adding...
I'm perfectly happy to leave `.ref` to a separate PR, so long as @AlexHeide agrees to take responsibility for getting that in by PsiCon at the latest. 🙂
Just updating the reference is fine with me, in that case.
Since you suspect an error in the Boys function, #243 may fix this. On #243 merge, I suggest we re-sync #233 and have Lori (sorry) re-run the test file.
Nice. Does it make a difference that the Knowles code uses the MIT license, whereas we use one of the GNU licenses?
Is this PR ready for another round of review? If so, please mark the "ready for review" option on the first post here. That's how core developers can tell if...
The new PR should **only** have test changes. The point of me asking for this is to make sure that this PR does not change the `DFT_DO_DHF` results that the...
Proposed rename sounds good, thanks.
While I did not give this a very careful pass, I've given it enough of a pass to merge it in once the previous two comments I made are addressed....
Agreed that bundling this PR into the next JK one is a bad idea. @zachglick, thoughts? I strongly preferred your plan before, but it wasn't something I was going to...