Closed GoogleCodeExporter closed 9 years ago
Original comment by richardjgowers
on 4 Feb 2015 at 10:44
https://code.google.com/p/mdanalysis/source/detail?r=92b11b7264f40022608f15ccc81
97ee7cdee80df&name=feature-classbasedtopologies
Just pushed a work in progress branch for this.
Currently the PDB parsing doesn't work, the segids end up as ' ' and I'm not
entirely sure why.... The various PDB parsing options are pretty confusing to
me.
Original comment by richardjgowers
on 4 Feb 2015 at 11:04
Just did a code review.
1) Overall: great! Some requests for changes in review.
2) It wasn't clear to me which PDB parser fails. Can you elaborate?
And just to clarify: it also means that this commit breaks PDB reading? (So I
shouldn't recommend pulling develop at the moment...) – if we can't fix this
in a day, we should move the cleanup to a feature branch and the revert develop
to have a working develop.
Original comment by orbeckst
on 5 Feb 2015 at 12:40
Sorry, failed to mention, it's a feature branch currently, just wanted to make
sure I'd gone in the right direction.
Thanks for the feedback, I'll keep working on it. I think differentiating
between IOError and ValueError make sense so I'll put them back in.
The PDB not working is:
In [1]: import MDAnalysis as mda
In [2]: u = mda.Universe('adk_oplsaa.pdb')
In [3]: u.segments
Out[3]: <SegmentGroup [<Segment ' '>]>
In [4]: len(u.atoms)
Out[4]: 47681
In [5]: len(u.residues)
Out[5]: 11302
In [6]: u.atoms[0]
Out[6]: < Atom 1: name 'N' of type 'N' of resname 'MET', resid 1 and segid ' '>
So for some reason the Segid isn't getting set to "SYSTEM" by default, but
everything else is fine. I'll get to the bottom of it.
Original comment by richardjgowers
on 5 Feb 2015 at 9:41
Original comment by richardjgowers
on 5 Feb 2015 at 4:31
Ok, I think I've finished this now. Everything relating this passes, (PDB
reading fixed), so pending review it can be merged to develop.
https://code.google.com/p/mdanalysis/source/detail?r=d07684c9971be1e23c1e4b8ca87
b9c59dd1c1dfc&name=feature-classbasedtopologies
Original comment by richardjgowers
on 9 Feb 2015 at 1:18
This issue was closed by revision c8bde94ab285.
Original comment by richardjgowers
on 9 Feb 2015 at 4:26
This issue was closed by revision f3b254426f98.
Original comment by richardjgowers
on 16 Feb 2015 at 11:37
Original issue reported on code.google.com by
richardjgowers
on 4 Feb 2015 at 10:44