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

The road to trajectories #469

Open
3 of 5 tasks
rartino opened this issue Jun 11, 2023 · 9 comments
Open
3 of 5 tasks

The road to trajectories #469

rartino opened this issue Jun 11, 2023 · 9 comments

Comments

@rartino
Copy link
Contributor

rartino commented Jun 11, 2023

This issue duplicates #428 and #34. It is meant to be a short checklist of our current agreed path to get "trajectories" into the OPTIMADE standard.

People listed as trajectory stakeholders: @rartino @sauliusg @giovannipizzi @gmrigna @JPBergsma @merkys

Checklist:

Note: people marked with (*) above "own" the respective PRs and can thus not formally approve them. Nevertheless, since these PRs undergo change requests/discussions, lets try to keep track above when also the owner feels a PR is ok to merge.

Any necessary step I've forgotten? Comment below and I'll edit this list to integrate it.

@rartino
Copy link
Contributor Author

rartino commented Jun 16, 2023

Trying to organize things here, since I understand it, getting trajectories into v1.2.0 is desired and somewhat urgent: @JPBergsma, are you available and want to take on point 4 for a PR with a stand-alone definition of the property_ranges query parameter, preferably ready and merge:able for the web meeting next Thursday?

@JPBergsma
Copy link
Contributor

For me, it is not that important that it goes into the 1.2 version. I do not know what Giovanni and Gian-Marco have communicated with you, perhaps they want to have it merged in if it was a deliverable in a proposal. The most important, for me, is that I have a draft version for which everyone agrees on the mechanism that will be used.
I think we should also build a trial implementation before we merge the partial data PR with the 1.2 version, as we now wrote it rather quickly, and I suspect there are still some hidden issues. (I had not finished my review when it got merged.)

I'll start working on the "property_ranges" parameter next week.
It may be better if you message me directly if you want me to do something, as mentions on GitHub can easily get drowned in the large number of messages I get from GitHub.

@gmrigna
Copy link
Contributor

gmrigna commented Jun 16, 2023

I think that having trajectories in v1.2 is important for CECAM and for the MD community. @JPBergsma Does that sound feasible?

@JPBergsma
Copy link
Contributor

I think we should first make an implementation of the partial data PR. I think it is mainly important that there is a clear draft version, so I and other groups, if they want, can start with implementing it, so we see what is practical and what not.
Whether we make it for version 1.2 depends on when you want to release it. I thought version 1.2 was close to finished. So I think that waiting for a proper implementation may delay the release of 1.2 for several months. For what is the most important for CECAM, I should first consult with Sara and perhaps also Andrea.
Would it be problematic to release a 1.3 version later on with the trajectory changes and not delay version 1.2 ?

@gmrigna
Copy link
Contributor

gmrigna commented Jun 18, 2023

It would definitely help if you could discuss this with Sara...

@JPBergsma
Copy link
Contributor

I have not slept properly for about one and a half week and have therefore not yet been able to finish the PR for the property ranges. I'll try to finish it tomorrow, but I do not know how I will feel by then.

@orionarcher
Copy link

My team is working on implementing an OPTIMADE-compliant database, and we'd like to include trajectories. I am wondering if including trajectories in the OPTIMADE API is still in scope/development?

@rartino
Copy link
Contributor Author

rartino commented Sep 30, 2024

@orionarcher This is most certainly still in scope and under development. Things are moving a bit slow due to developer overload, but #452 (edit: #481 which is a re-do) will soon be updated with changes we agreed on during the last monthly meeting.

@JPBergsma
Copy link
Contributor

I worked on this until about a year ago.
As far as implementing goes I did quite some work on this before I left.

See PRs Materials-Consortia/optimade-python-tools#1698
Materials-Consortia/optimade-python-tools#1812
Materials-Consortia/optimade-python-tools#1845
I am however not sure about changes that were made to the specification after I left.
Currently I have a burnout so I am not sure how much time I'll be able to spend on it now.

There was a demo server on Matcloud but unfortunatly it is no longer online.

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

No branches or pull requests

4 participants