Skip to content
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

not catching node name mismatch #101

Open
JenkeScheen opened this issue Oct 18, 2023 · 3 comments
Open

not catching node name mismatch #101

JenkeScheen opened this issue Oct 18, 2023 · 3 comments
Labels
enhancement New feature or request

Comments

@JenkeScheen
Copy link

It seems that in the current version of cinnabar when calling plot_(D)DGs with a mismatch between ligand names (in my case, experimental data had an appended '_1' to the names in the input), there is no error/warning that the data arrays can't be matched based on the names.

Instead, plot_(D)DGs plots the input array on both axes, resulting in an x=y plot.

@mikemhenry mikemhenry added the enhancement New feature or request label Oct 19, 2023
@mikemhenry
Copy link
Collaborator

Good question, I will defer to @richardjgowers for how to best handle matching the name. With some of the new changes, this will be less confusing but I think will still be a foot gun due to how we want to support the legacy csv format.

@richardjgowers
Copy link
Contributor

Yeah this looks like an issue.

The plotting functions make an assumption that all graphs are perfectly matched between experimental and calculated points, see: https://github.com/OpenFreeEnergy/cinnabar/blob/main/cinnabar/plotting.py#L418

@JenkeScheen
Copy link
Author

A decent solution to this is to allow unmatched ligand names (but not plot them), instead only plot what's matched, while also setting off some logging alarms to inform the user that they need to sort their stuff out.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
enhancement New feature or request
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants