Conversation
…o tests for it in test cases
Member
|
Charge is partial charge, typically you just want to set for FormalCharge |
Member
|
You probably do not want an equality check on the getCharge as it is a floating point/Double |
Contributor
Author
|
Thanks, @johnmay , with the latest commit, I'm only copying and testing the formal charges now. |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
I noticed that charges were disappearing when extracting functional groups. A bit of digging made me realise that were are not correctly testing for it, the Vento-Foggia isomorphism check is not enough. This PR adds the copying of atomic charges and also a test subroutine for asserting that charges are not lost anymore.
@johnmay and @egonw what is the interplay of charge and formal charge? Setting the formal charge seems to also set the charge but not vice-versa. Is this observation/behaviour correct and should I therefore copy both as I am currently doing?