Skip to content
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

Tutorials for QHA and Grüneisen workflows #1122

Merged
merged 64 commits into from
Feb 18, 2025

Conversation

JaGeo
Copy link
Member

@JaGeo JaGeo commented Feb 12, 2025

Summary

  • Include tutorials for qha
  • include tutorial for grüneisen parameter
  • fix potential omissions in the qha schema
  • finish my fight with the linting (our hard drive looses all file permissions which makes the pre-commit really messy...)

@JaGeo JaGeo changed the title WIP: Tutorials for QHA and Grüneisen workflows Tutorials for QHA and Grüneisen workflows Feb 18, 2025
@JaGeo
Copy link
Member Author

JaGeo commented Feb 18, 2025

Note here: i had to exclude one file from ruff as ruff-format would do the exact opposite.

@JaGeo JaGeo enabled auto-merge (squash) February 18, 2025 14:13
@JaGeo JaGeo merged commit 46d13b6 into materialsproject:main Feb 18, 2025
18 checks passed
@janosh
Copy link
Member

janosh commented Feb 18, 2025

always good to see more docs and tutorials! 👍

curious though, is it really necessary to commit ~400 test files alongside these tutorials? seems like this could bloat the repo over time

@JaGeo
Copy link
Member Author

JaGeo commented Feb 18, 2025

@janosh, I agree with you that this might be a large number, but otherwise, people cannot test the workflows with realistic data.

@JaGeo
Copy link
Member Author

JaGeo commented Feb 18, 2025

I think i had a look at the data size: it was not more than 4 MB

@JaGeo
Copy link
Member Author

JaGeo commented Feb 18, 2025

@janosh To add further, i think this is currently one of our most complex workflows. We can, unfortunately, not run it with most of the forcefields as the accuracy is not good enough yet. I might be able to reduce the number of points along the ev curve a bit to get still a good fit but that would mean running yet another workflow just for test data. Not sure it is worth the effort in this one case.

Btw, we now have: https://materialsproject.github.io/atomate2/tutorials/tutorials.html

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants