From: Noel O'B. <bao...@gm...> - 2007-09-03 09:31:40
|
Hello all, We need to resolve the remaining regression and test failures. Molpro cannot currently handle symmetrical molecules. So we need a pass on the test failures. For the next version of cclib, we should try to make it handle these molecules if possible. There's a Gaussian failure with IOP(7/33)=1 (or something like this). I think that Karol uploaded this. The input file isn't provided, but could you redo this with IOP(3/33=1, 3/36=-1) and POP=FULL? I want to sort out once and for all whether it is possible for us to handle this, or at least not to crash. There are two ADF failures: now is the time to decide whether we can handle these. In the next version of cclib, we seriously need to consider parsing the 'checkpoint' files or whatever they're called, instead. This should be a lot less work. There's a Molpro regression failure for C_bigbasis_cart or something. Can Molpro do TD-DFT? If so, please upload a test file. And that's it, I think. The methods and bridges are working fine. I thought about adding a new feature to ccget for converting to json format, but we are past the point for new features for cclib 0.8. Noel |
From: Noel O'B. <bao...@gm...> - 2007-09-03 11:00:35
|
I understand error to mean an error in cclib. "Not a correct calculation" sounds like a problem with the log file, and should be a warning. On 03/09/07, Karol Langner <kar...@kn...> wrote: > On Monday 03 September 2007 02:56, Noel O'Boyle wrote: > > There's a Molpro regression failure for C_bigbasis_cart or something. > I moved that from the data directory, becuase it was duplicating C_bigbasis, > and it is not a correct calculation (augmented basis set in cartesian > representation) which is why it has bogus output (stars in the mocoeffs > because the cofficients are too large). > > I added an excpetion for this in the Molpro parser, which calls logger.error() > with a message so that the parser doesn't crash. Now I see this gives alot of > output when running the regressions, becuase the loglevel is set to ERROR. > Should the loglevel be set lower, or should I issue a warning instead of an > error to the logger in this case? > > Karol > > -- > written by Karol Langner > Mon Sep 3 11:31:38 EDT 2007 > |
From: Karol L. <kar...@kn...> - 2007-09-03 23:10:51
|
OK, I changed it to a warning. On Monday 03 September 2007 05:53, Noel O'Boyle wrote: > I understand error to mean an error in cclib. "Not a correct > calculation" sounds like a problem with the log file, and should be a > warning. > > On 03/09/07, Karol Langner <kar...@kn...> wrote: > > On Monday 03 September 2007 02:56, Noel O'Boyle wrote: > > > There's a Molpro regression failure for C_bigbasis_cart or something. > > > > I moved that from the data directory, becuase it was duplicating > > C_bigbasis, and it is not a correct calculation (augmented basis set in > > cartesian representation) which is why it has bogus output (stars in the > > mocoeffs because the cofficients are too large). > > > > I added an excpetion for this in the Molpro parser, which calls > > logger.error() with a message so that the parser doesn't crash. Now I see > > this gives alot of output when running the regressions, becuase the > > loglevel is set to ERROR. Should the loglevel be set lower, or should I > > issue a warning instead of an error to the logger in this case? > > > > Karol > > > > -- > > written by Karol Langner > > Mon Sep 3 11:31:38 EDT 2007 -- written by Karol Langner Tue Sep 4 01:03:28 EDT 2007 |
From: Karol L. <kar...@kn...> - 2007-09-03 13:34:21
|
On Monday 03 September 2007 02:56, Noel O'Boyle wrote: > There's a Molpro regression failure for C_bigbasis_cart or something. I moved that from the data directory, becuase it was duplicating C_bigbasis, and it is not a correct calculation (augmented basis set in cartesian representation) which is why it has bogus output (stars in the mocoeffs because the cofficients are too large). I added an excpetion for this in the Molpro parser, which calls logger.error() with a message so that the parser doesn't crash. Now I see this gives alot of output when running the regressions, becuase the loglevel is set to ERROR. Should the loglevel be set lower, or should I issue a warning instead of an error to the logger in this case? Karol -- written by Karol Langner Mon Sep 3 11:31:38 EDT 2007 |
From: Adam T. <a-t...@st...> - 2007-09-03 16:22:14
|
> There are two ADF failures: now is the time to decide whether we can > handle these. In the next version of cclib, we seriously need to > consider parsing the 'checkpoint' files or whatever they're called, > instead. This should be a lot less work. I sent a mail (titled ADF failures, August 28th) to the list about one of these failures. Basically there are two "problems" with the logfile. First, it has an incorrectly formatted create job. Second, it actually has two single point calculations in the file. Please look back at the email and reply with your comments. Adam |