Closed giacomofiorin closed 4 years ago
That sounds reasonable. And true, there are not many ABF tests.
It seems that a succession of "run" commands in NAMD do not reset cvm::it_restart. So I'm not sure this is handled correctly by the current implementation.
True. This is a separate issue, though. It has to do with deciding whether the second "run" command is a continuation of the first one, or a new run altogether (there are examples of both with identical syntax). I'm not sure something as simple as it_restart can track it reliably. Maybe it could.
On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 1:30 PM Jérôme Hénin notifications@github.com wrote:
It seems that a succession of "run" commands in NAMD do not reset cvm::it_restart. So I'm not sure this is handled correctly by the current implementation.
— You are receiving this because you modified the open/close state. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/Colvars/colvars/issues/343#issuecomment-649718729, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABCNSWIQKGEPWBKDFVSRLELRYOCUVANCNFSM4MEA3VGA .
-- Giacomo Fiorin Associate Professor of Research, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA Research collaborator, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD http://goo.gl/Q3TBQU https://github.com/giacomofiorin
Currently, the 0-th step is being counted twice (because it is the same as the last step of the preceding job). This adds a tiny error during MD simulations in NAMD or LAMMPS, and no error in a VMD analysis run. So it has been mostly harmless.
But now you have use cases that rely on many short
run
commands (e.g. constant pH in NAMD, replica exchange, etc), so the error isn't necessarily tiny any more.ABF and TI currently skip the 0-th step of any
run
command in NAMD, although for different reasons (the total forces aren't available yet). I need to test with LAMMPS, because there are no ABF inputs in the cross-enginetests
folder (and not many innamd/tests/library
anyway...).