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

Reorder Hubbard atoms with HubbardStructureData #31

Closed
bastonero opened this issue Dec 2, 2022 · 3 comments
Closed

Reorder Hubbard atoms with HubbardStructureData #31

bastonero opened this issue Dec 2, 2022 · 3 comments

Comments

@bastonero
Copy link
Collaborator

The hp.x code will crash if the hubbard atoms are not listed before all the other ones. Thus, at the beginning of the SelfConsistentHubbardWorkChain we should check for this. The HubbardStructureData is already provided with a method that internally will reorder the sites.

We need simply to implement a simple calcfunction that takes as input a HubbardStructureData, clones it, uses the self.reorder_hubbard_atoms(), and gives in outputs an ordered HubbardStructureData.

This functionality was already implemented before the HubbardStructureData implementation. The method will make these procedure smoother.

@sphuber
Copy link
Contributor

sphuber commented Dec 2, 2022

This functionality was already implemented before the HubbardStructureData implementation. The method will make these procedure smoother.

Indeed, see this calcfunction: https://github.com/aiidateam/aiida-quantumespresso-hp/blob/master/src/aiida_quantumespresso_hp/calculations/functions/structure_reorder_kinds.py

@bastonero
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Thanks @sphuber ! Yes, I new about that calcfunction. Now that we are using the HubbardStructureData, also the Hubbard parameters themselves must be reordered accordingly within the class. This feature has been already implemented in the dedicated branch on aiida-quantumespresso.

IMPORTANT to discus: shall we "pre" reorder the sites within the HubbardStructureData "on storing"? I think no, since pw.x runs even without this order.

@bastonero
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Fixed in #32

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

No branches or pull requests

2 participants