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

Py: system.part.pairs() is wrong #4622

Closed
RudolfWeeber opened this issue Dec 6, 2022 · 2 comments · Fixed by #4628
Closed

Py: system.part.pairs() is wrong #4622

RudolfWeeber opened this issue Dec 6, 2022 · 2 comments · Fixed by #4628

Comments

@RudolfWeeber
Copy link
Contributor

if the particle numbering is not consecuitve (contains holes), this misses pairs.

@Koppeprojects
Copy link

I'll fix that.

@jngrad
Copy link
Member

jngrad commented Dec 12, 2022

This bug was introduced in the 4.2.0 release.

@kodiakhq kodiakhq bot closed this as completed in #4628 Dec 12, 2022
kodiakhq bot added a commit that referenced this issue Dec 12, 2022
Fixes #4622

Description of changes:
- the `System.part.pairs()` method now returns the correct particle pairs when particle ids aren't both contiguous and starting from 0
jngrad pushed a commit to jngrad/espresso that referenced this issue Dec 23, 2022
Fixes espressomd#4622

Description of changes:
- the `System.part.pairs()` method now returns the correct particle pairs when particle ids aren't both contiguous and starting from 0
jngrad pushed a commit to jngrad/espresso that referenced this issue Dec 23, 2022
Fixes espressomd#4622

Description of changes:
- the `System.part.pairs()` method now returns the correct particle pairs when particle ids aren't both contiguous and starting from 0
jngrad pushed a commit to jngrad/espresso that referenced this issue Dec 23, 2022
Fixes espressomd#4622

Description of changes:
- the `System.part.pairs()` method now returns the correct particle pairs when particle ids aren't both contiguous and starting from 0
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

3 participants