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

Clarify purpose of functions that only handle PDB files anyway #673

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Mar 13, 2024

Conversation

giacomofiorin
Copy link
Member

@giacomofiorin giacomofiorin commented Mar 13, 2024

Coordinate loading functions are renamed to reflect that they are specific to the PDB format.

@jhenin
Copy link
Member

jhenin commented Mar 13, 2024

A very good change! I'm unsure that it solves all the problems that were raised in #667 though: the case of a missing file, grompp vs. mdrun?

@giacomofiorin
Copy link
Member Author

A very good change! I'm unsure that it solves all the problems that were raised in #667 though: the case of a missing file, grompp vs. mdrun?

It wouldn't. However, it would no longer print the generic message "loading atomic coordinates from a file is currently not implemented", but rather one specific to the PDB format.

Then if the XYZ file is missing/unreadable, we get the same error message as with any other file.

@jhenin
Copy link
Member

jhenin commented Mar 13, 2024

Then I propose merging this, but not closing #667 just yet.

@giacomofiorin
Copy link
Member Author

I edited the description to reflect your suggestion, but I'm not sure I understand why.

If we can't use std::filesystem::exists() and you propose instead to try open a file to catch a generic read error, that would not be different from the current behavior for a XYZ file in GROMACS. But for a PDB, we'd want the "not implemented" error to come out regardless of whether the file is unreadable.

@giacomofiorin giacomofiorin merged commit 52affb7 into master Mar 13, 2024
15 checks passed
@giacomofiorin giacomofiorin deleted the load_coords_pdb branch March 13, 2024 22:49
@giacomofiorin giacomofiorin mentioned this pull request Aug 5, 2024
9 tasks
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