Skip to content

Conversation

@atravitz
Copy link
Contributor

#1104

Checklist

  • Added a news entry

Developers certificate of origin

@atravitz atravitz added this to the v1.3.0 milestone Jan 31, 2025
@mikemhenry
Copy link
Contributor

@atravitz are we bumping this to 1.4?

@mikemhenry mikemhenry modified the milestones: v1.3.0, v1.4.0, v1.3.1 Feb 14, 2025
@atravitz atravitz force-pushed the 1104-gather-check_json_files branch from 33498c0 to 899fb8d Compare February 14, 2025 20:52
@atravitz atravitz force-pushed the 1104-gather-check_json_files branch from 899fb8d to 6e603ce Compare March 13, 2025 22:00
@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Mar 13, 2025

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 92.56%. Comparing base (a823546) to head (3de396a).
Report is 99 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #1112      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   94.15%   92.56%   -1.59%     
==========================================
  Files         141      141              
  Lines       10588    10651      +63     
==========================================
- Hits         9969     9859     -110     
- Misses        619      792     +173     
Flag Coverage Δ
fast-tests 92.56% <100.00%> (?)
slow-tests ?

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
  • ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

@atravitz
Copy link
Contributor Author

It looks like the rbfe_results dataset has 4 simulations with exceptions in unit_results.

for example, in rbfe_lig_ejm_46_solvent_lig_jmc_28_solvent.json

"exception": ["SimulationNaNError", ["Propagating replica 1 at state 1 resulted in a NaN!\nThe state of the system and integrator before the error were saved in results/rbfe_lig_ejm_46_solvent_lig_jmc_28_solvent/shared_RelativeHybridTopologyProtocolUnit-60df96a488094f63978880d19487d299_attempt_0/nan-error-logs"]], "traceback": "Traceback (most recent call last):\n File \"/lila/home/henrym3/micromamba/envs/openfe-0.10.1/lib/python3.10/site-packages/openmmtools/multistate/multistatesampler.py\", line 1326, in _propagate_replica\n mcmc_move.apply(thermodynamic_state, sampler_state, context_cache=self.sampler_context_cache)\n File \"/lila/home/henrym3/micromamba/envs/openfe-0.10.1/lib/python3.10/site-packages/openmmtools/mcmc.py\", line 1151, in apply\n super(LangevinDynamicsMove, self).apply(thermodynamic_state, sampler_state,\n File \"/lila/home/henrym3/micromamba/envs/openfe-0.10.1/lib/python3.10/site-packages/openmmtools/mcmc.py\", line 755, in apply\n raise IntegratorMoveError(err_msg, self, context)\nopenmmtools.mcmc.IntegratorMoveError: Potential energy is NaN after 20 attempts of integration with move LangevinDynamicsMove\n\nDuring handling of the above exception, another exception occurred:\n\nTraceback (most recent call last):\n File \"/lila/home/henrym3/micromamba/envs/openfe-0.10.1/lib/python3.10/site-packages/gufe/protocols/protocolunit.py\", line 308, in execute\n outputs = self._execute(context, **inputs)\n File \"/lila/home/henrym3/micromamba/envs/openfe-0.10.1/lib/python3.10/site-packages/openfe/protocols/openmm_rfe/equil_rfe_methods.py\", line 674, in _execute\n outputs = self.run(scratch_basepath=ctx.scratch, shared_basepath=ctx.shared)\n File \"/lila/home/henrym3/micromamba/envs/openfe-0.10.1/lib/python3.10/site-packages/openfe/protocols/openmm_rfe/equil_rfe_methods.py\", line 617, in run\n sampler.equilibrate(int(equil_steps / mc_steps)) # type: ignore\n File \"/lila/home/henrym3/micromamba/envs/openfe-0.10.1/lib/python3.10/site-packages/openmmtools/multistate/multistatesampler.py\", line 696, in equilibrate\n self._propagate_replicas()\n File \"/lila/home/henrym3/micromamba/envs/openfe-0.10.1/lib/python3.10/site-packages/openmmtools/utils/utils.py\", line 95, in _wrapper\n return func(*args, **kwargs)\n File \"/lila/home/henrym3/micromamba/envs/openfe-0.10.1/lib/python3.10/site-packages/openmmtools/multistate/multistatesampler.py\", line 1299, in _propagate_replicas\n propagated_states, replica_ids = mpiplus.distribute(self._propagate_replica, range(self.n_replicas),\n File \"/lila/home/henrym3/micromamba/envs/openfe-0.10.1/lib/python3.10/site-packages/mpiplus/mpiplus.py\", line 523, in distribute\n all_results = [task(job_args, *other_args, **kwargs) for job_args in distributed_args]\n File \"/lila/home/henrym3/micromamba/envs/openfe-0.10.1/lib/python3.10/site-packages/mpiplus/mpiplus.py\", line 523, in <listcomp>\n all_results = [task(job_args, *other_args, **kwargs) for job_args in distributed_args]\n File \"/lila/home/henrym3/micromamba/envs/openfe-0.10.1/lib/python3.10/site-packages/openmmtools/multistate/multistatesampler.py\", line 1337, in _propagate_replica\n raise SimulationNaNError(message)\nopenmmtools.multistate.utils.SimulationNaNError: Propagating replica 1 at state 1 resulted in a NaN!\nThe state of the system and integrator before the error were saved in results/rbfe_lig_ejm_46_solvent_lig_jmc_28_solvent/

@mikemhenry @jthorton - Is it time for us to use a tidier dataset, like one from industry benchmarking?

@mikemhenry
Copy link
Contributor

I can't remember the providence of that data set, but don't we want some data that has exceptions so can test handling exceptions in our tooling? Or is this dataset supposed to be clean?

@atravitz
Copy link
Contributor Author

@mikemhenry @jthorton disregard- this is due to an oversight by me when creating the parallel test dataset. this is working as intended, and I just need to update the test dataset on zenodo!

@atravitz atravitz force-pushed the 1104-gather-check_json_files branch from 67e81a7 to 330bcaf Compare March 18, 2025 19:31
@atravitz atravitz marked this pull request as ready for review March 18, 2025 19:34
@mikemhenry
Copy link
Contributor

@atravitz can you fix the merge conflict? I have a guess on the right DOI but I don't want to be wrong

@atravitz atravitz force-pushed the 1104-gather-check_json_files branch from c330156 to fb96222 Compare March 19, 2025 16:40
@github-actions
Copy link

No API break detected ✅

@atravitz atravitz requested a review from mikemhenry March 19, 2025 17:39
@mikemhenry mikemhenry enabled auto-merge (squash) March 19, 2025 17:44
@mikemhenry mikemhenry merged commit b798454 into main Mar 19, 2025
13 checks passed
@mikemhenry mikemhenry deleted the 1104-gather-check_json_files branch March 19, 2025 17:53
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants