-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 50
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
Miller
warning about lack of Structure
in Phase
#439
Comments
Yes, having a correct structure (with a lattice) is a responsibility of the user. The documentation states that if a The solution I see is that when a lattice is not given, we set it to (1, 1, 1, 90, 90, 90) unless the symmetry given belongs to the hexagonal or trigonal crystal system, in which case we use (1, 1, 1, 90, 90, 120). |
This is a good solution, but I think a warning printed to the user might still be beneficial as for instance for the hexagonal systems, calculations such as angles are dependent on the a/c ratio. |
I think in this case another option could be to have no default structure and require the user to define it, if it is easily forgotten and leads to incorrect results. What might help is if the docstring for Phase includes some basic examples, eg. cubic and hexagonal phase setups, and also if it explicitly specifies that the default structure is cubic without referring the user to diffpy. What do you think to this? |
I agree that it is useful for a user to be warned when they create a
Yes, initialization of a |
Yes, we should specify that the default is (1, 1, 1, 90, 90, 90) unless trigonal/hexagonal. |
A few times now I have been puzzled by Miller giving "wrong" angles between vectors. The issue every time is that I forget to add a
Structure
argument to thePhase
.Should we add a warning when creating
Miller
objects (or perhaps thePhase
object) that if aPhase
with noStructure
is passed, then calculations might not be correct? (at least for non cubic systems)The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: