- 
                Notifications
    
You must be signed in to change notification settings  - Fork 734
 
          mark analysis.atomicdistances.AtomicDistances as not parallelizable
          #4808
        
          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
Conversation
marking atomidistances as not parallelizable
added tests
added to changelog the non paralellization
| 
           Hello @talagayev! Thanks for updating this PR. We checked the lines you've touched for PEP 8 issues, and found: There are currently no PEP 8 issues detected in this Pull Request. Cheers! 🍻 Comment last updated at 2024-11-27 16:16:07 UTC | 
    
          Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅ 
 Additional details and impacted files@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##           develop    #4808      +/-   ##
===========================================
- Coverage    93.68%   93.66%   -0.03%     
===========================================
  Files          177      189      +12     
  Lines        21742    22809    +1067     
  Branches      3055     3055              
===========================================
+ Hits         20368    21363     +995     
- Misses         927     1000      +73     
+ Partials       447      446       -1     ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. 🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
  | 
    
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
You're right — but the issue is really that we somehow never upgraded this analysis class to use Results. I am not sure how this slipped through. I raised #4819.
Even though your PR looks fine, I'd prefer to fix #4819 and then parallelize the class because from the outside it makes no sense that such a simple calculation "cannot be parallelized". This would not look good.
Until we decide what to do with #4819, this PR should be on hold.
          
 Yes that sounds reasonable, since if #4819 is adressed, than it should not be a problem to implement the parallelization here with some quick adjustments  | 
    
| 
           @talagayev I am closing this PR — one way or another, we'll decide on PR #4822 how to continue.  | 
    
          
 Yes, sounds good by me :) I can just create a new PR as soon as the decision is done for PR #4822. Adding  | 
    
Fixes #4662
Changes made in this Pull Request:
atomicdistances.AtomicDistancesexplicitly marked as not parallelizabletest_atomicdistances.pyto assertserialbackendReason why
atomicdistances.AtomicDistancesis not parallelizable:ResultsusesUserDictas input, whileatomicdistances.AtomicDistancesoutputs annumpy.ndarrayso it would require the modification of the output or modification of
Resultsto make it parallelizablePR Checklist
Developers certificate of origin
📚 Documentation preview 📚: https://mdanalysis--4808.org.readthedocs.build/en/4808/