You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Currently, the code will not work (or at least not as intended) if a DefectSpecies has more than one DefectChargeState with the same charge. This doesn't allow us to consider metastable defects.
I think this issue is resolved as simply as moving away from having DefectChargeStates represented as a dictionary, and instead a list or array. Though there may be unforseen issues in the formalism.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
I can't think of a reason why the set of DefectChargeStates needs to be a dict and not some other collection type / or why it is necessary for the keys to be the charges (except that this is conceptually simple in cases where you do not have metastable defects).
I don't like the fact the keys are the charges anyway, it's redundant (I'm not exactly sure when that got worked in to the code). But fixing it would be a breaking change, this gives me a reason to do it.
There are definitely places where that dictionary is iterated over to get keys or DefectChargeState objects, but these can hopefully be replaced with equivalent code in a fairly localised fashion.
Currently, the code will not work (or at least not as intended) if a DefectSpecies has more than one DefectChargeState with the same charge. This doesn't allow us to consider metastable defects.
I think this issue is resolved as simply as moving away from having DefectChargeStates represented as a dictionary, and instead a list or array. Though there may be unforseen issues in the formalism.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: