Page Comparison

Updates

• DH

  • Started testing. Seems to work well.

  • Tested execution options A-C

  • Lim had a way to match the query-reference structures, which was used in some parts, but not in others. I’m using this throughout.

  • J W: Need to be careful about atom order; I’ve had luck with rdkit.Chem.rdMolAlign tools. Perhaps CalcBestRMS?

    • JW – I will switch to using CalcBestRMS

• JH

  • Issue setting up SnowflakeHandler. Something about SQL error. If I do the snowflake class directly it works fine.

    • Locally, on mac, I can do both

    • On the linux machine I SSH into, I can only use the snowflake itself, not the snowflake handler. The error with the snowflakehandler is on startup.

      • Full output below

      • Ubuntu 16.04 – Computer was brand new 2 years ago

    • psi4 package currently appears broken

    • DD – Are any major directories networked?

      • JH – As best as I can tell, it’s all local

    • JH: On SnowflakeHandler, no matter the number of workers, same result; Snowflake itself works fine across number of workers

      • DD: We’ll switch to Snowflake itself and see if this works for users generally, handler not necessary likely

      • DD: can try and reproduce on ubuntu 16.04 VM if we still have issues

• JW

  • Progress bars

  • Better/broader error handling

  • Live output for conf gen

  • RMS ratchet for conf gen

    • Not sure what minimum cutoff should be – How willl this affect downstream analysis? How bad are redundant post-QM conformers?

      • DH – For now let’s handle it naively (low cutoff/no deduplication), and in the future we can adjust this cutoff or do deduplication in a subsequent (post QM) stage.

      • DH – This is related to JH’s comments last week – It may be informative to monitor RMS change during QM optimization.

  • Redid docs

  • 0.8.2 release with stereo fixes

  • Warning squelching

    • Can/should I also do RDKit?

  • logging and name_assignment.csv

  • Next step:

    • Molecule labeling/parameter assignment

      • JH: started a branch for this component; this may be a good starting point for you

    • Add more error-handling tests for conf gen, ensure that parallel conf gen PR still handles tough cases gracefully

      • For logging with multiprocessing: https://pypi.org/project/multiprocessing-logging/

• DD

  • Iterated on compute component with Swope and JW.

  • Made protocol document, sits on top of deployment doc

    • Offers 5 types of running:

      • single node, no server

      • multi node, no server/manager

      • (See doc for all supported configurations)

    • DD – Feedback on compute options?

      • DH – Could prioritize the 5 options – I’d deprioritize option A for example.

      • JW – Should completely reorder them – Less for users to read

      • DD – I’d put them in the order D, E, C, B, A

  • Added progress bar for execution steps

  • JW – I’ll look into RDKit warning squelching

  • DH – Could I have alberto’s dataset? I think they may be similar to PDB set.

    • DD – I’ll send those to you

  • JW – Option for Galileo compute

    • DD – Doubtful about this being successful, pharma folks probably couldn’t do this for data security reasons

    • JH – It’s been easy to use galileo compute for bespoke workflow

    • DD – Would need to make guarantees about security of network traffic

  • Major concerns/blockers?

    • DD – Nervous about diversity of compute environments, though they’re mostly SLURM. 3 or 4 partners didn’t respond at all.

    • DD – Concerned about need for network-accessible server. Partners will need to contact IT and get this done.

      • JH – Could send out a test case of compute to have them try and run.

    • DD – Also concerned about managing expectations for what they can handle for a given amount of compute resources.

    • JW – This is a very complex operation. If a few pharma partners end up coming in late/reducing size of dataset/dropping out, that’s not the end of the world, and a reasonable person wouldn’t put it all the blame on us. Especially if 7 other companies get it working successfully, the two/three that encounter trouble won’t see it as us being negligent.

    • DD – Could make a “predicted timer”, with an upper estimate on time required. This would help managing expectations.

    • JW - risks to project: after we do compute, could be expensive to try things again with a different approach; not really actionable, however

    • DH: Think we’ll have more information in early January

    • DD: I’ll reach out to Fox, Gobbi, since they expressed interest in giving feedback

      • JH: is there a list of things we should ask them to report back?

      • JW: like give them a set of specific molecules to try on their infrastructure?

        • JW – Will put together a small set to distribute for this purpose (5 heavy atoms, 10 heavy atoms, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60)

          • 60 is larger than we expect to handle, but it will be good to see what happens on really large mols

• DH: below 500 molecular weight is considered small molecule

  • DH: largest in the Lim set is 84 atoms, probably around 40 heavy atoms

• JW: Perhaps filter out in validate step?

  • Will include a molecule up to 60 heavy atoms in the test set; will help to set our cutoffs in validation

  • JW – Will add --max-heavy-atoms argument to validate component

JH’s full snowflakehandler error output

Place mols in subdir?

• DD: Can we put successful molecules in validation, conformer generation in their own subdirectory like error_mols? Important for flexibility of the compute step downstream

  • JW: yes, can make this change

  • JW – Will split validate output into success_mols and error_mols, have generate_conformers default to look in 1-validate_and_assign/success_mols

  • JW – Will enforce 3-character, all uppercase groupname

Conda package

• DD: JW, can you add conda package building on the basis of a git tag?

  • pull GHA from toolkit

  • JW – Yes. I’ll try to get this done, but it’s a lower priority than validate/conf gen to-dos

  • DD: can wait till January