Uh oh!
There was an error while loading.Please reload this page.
- Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork64
preliminary test for 0-orbital Atoms#733
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 ourterms of service andprivacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub?Sign in to your account
base:main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading.Please reload this page.
Conversation
Signed-off-by: Nick Papior <nickpapior@gmail.com>
I want to push this forward to use it for QM/MM geometries, should I start a new branch and create a separate PR? |
I haven't been looking much into this (sorry), so from my side you can,of course, proceed as you see fit. I'm still very much interested in this development in sisl! |
Yes, please do, branch this off would be ideal imho. However, I think it would be very beneficial to discuss here, or reiterate the decisions made in#449. Eg how sparse matrices etc should handle things. |
Or perhaps better, finish the discussions in#449, then let implementation details be discussed in the pr! |
@tfrederiksen@pfebrer
this is a first stab at 449. I am starting to grow on the idea.
However, as you can see in this PR, there are many places in the code base where it assumes that there exists some orbitals on atoms.
Whether or not these should be defaulted to be present or not is something that needs to be discussed.
However, it seems that one should be explicit on defining orbitals if one wishes to use them.
Many places the code simply fails because it now requires some kind of explicitness.
But I would agree that this could be useful. If anybody cares to expand/fix/add tests for the remaining details, feel free :)
isort .andblack .[24.2.0] at top-leveldocs/CHANGELOG.md