Skip to content

Refactor: change the name of keyword force_thr_ev2 to force_zero_out for clarity #6313

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

Merged
merged 4 commits into from
Jun 19, 2025

Conversation

kirk0830
Copy link
Collaborator

@kirk0830 kirk0830 commented Jun 19, 2025

As mentioned in issue #6304 , the keyword force_thr_ev2 is somehow confusing and misleading. After discussion, I suggest to change the name to force_zero_out to reflect its real functionality

Reminder

  • Have you linked an issue with this pull request?
  • Have you added adequate unit tests and/or case tests for your pull request?
  • Have you noticed possible changes of behavior below or in the linked issue?
  • Have you explained the changes of codes in core modules of ESolver, HSolver, ElecState, Hamilt, Operator or Psi? (ignore if not applicable)

Linked Issue

Fix #6304

What's changed?

  • Change the input parameter name of force_thr_ev2 to force_zero_out for clarity

@mohanchen mohanchen added Input&Output Suitable for coders without knowing too many DFT details Compile & CICD & Docs & Dependencies Issues related to compiling ABACUS Refactor Refactor ABACUS codes labels Jun 19, 2025
@mohanchen mohanchen merged commit 8d6b780 into deepmodeling:develop Jun 19, 2025
14 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Compile & CICD & Docs & Dependencies Issues related to compiling ABACUS Input&Output Suitable for coders without knowing too many DFT details Refactor Refactor ABACUS codes
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Docs: is the keyword force_thr_ev2 better to be renamed as force_zero_out?
2 participants