test(pt): add common test case for model/atomic model

[njzjz]

Fix #3501. Fix #3517. Fix #3518.

Summary by CodeRabbit

• Tests
  • Expanded testing capabilities for atomic and energy models to improve accuracy and reliability in energy calculations.
  • Implemented new test cases for atomic and energy models, along with common model test cases, to validate diverse functionalities and calculations.
  • Introduced test case classes for atomic and energy models with methods to assess parameters, types, outputs, and forward computations.
  • Added utility functions for testing PyTorch-based deep learning models with a custom backend.

[coderabbitai]

Warning

Rate Limit Exceeded

@njzjz has exceeded the limit for the number of commits or files that can be reviewed per hour. Please wait 47 minutes and 48 seconds before requesting another review.

How to resolve this issue?

After the wait time has elapsed, a review can be triggered using the @coderabbitai review command as a PR comment. Alternatively, push new commits to this PR.

We recommend that you space out your commits to avoid hitting the rate limit.

How do rate limits work?

CodeRabbit enforces hourly rate limits for each developer per organization.
Our paid plans have higher rate limits than the trial, open-source and free plans. In all cases, we re-allow further reviews after a brief timeout.
Please see our FAQ for further information.

Commits

Files that changed from the base of the PR and between 694d500 and 7cb00b9.

Walkthrough

The recent changes involve improvements across various components related to atomic models, model testing, and utility functions. These updates include additions like new methods for model classes, expanded functionalities for building neighbor lists, and the introduction of SPDX license identifiers in test modules.

Changes

Files Affected	Summary of Changes
deepmd/dpmodel/model/make_model.py	- Added a new method get_ntypes to class CM for determining the number of types.
source/tests/universal/common/backend.py source/tests/universal/dpmodel/backend.py	- Introduced test case classes BackendTestCase and DPTestCase with extended functionalities for testing modules.
source/tests/universal/common/cases/atomic_model/utils.py source/tests/universal/common/cases/model/utils.py	- Added AtomicModelTestCase and ModelTestCase classes with common test cases and methods for atomic and general models, respectively.
source/tests/universal/pt/backend.py	- Introduced PTTestCase class for testing PyTorch modules with methods for module scripting, deserialization, and JIT testing.

Assessment against linked issues

Objective	Addressed	Explanation
Test serialization & deserialization (#3501)	✅
Test get_sel, get_type, etc. for models (#3517)	❓	The changes focus on general model testing functionalities; it's unclear if specific tests for get_sel, get_type, etc., have been added.
Test JIT interface for all models (#3518)	✅

The recent code changes align well with the objectives outlined in the linked issues, particularly in enhancing serialization/deserialization tests and ensuring JIT interface testing for all models. However, the specific testing for get_sel, get_type, and similar functions needs further verification for clarity.

---

Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media?

Share

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

Tips

Chat

There are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:

• Review comments: Directly reply to a review comment made by CodeRabbit. Example:
  • I pushed a fix in commit <commit_id>.
  • Generate unit testing code for this file.
  • Open a follow-up GitHub issue for this discussion.
• Files and specific lines of code (under the "Files changed" tab): Tag @coderabbitai in a new review comment at the desired location with your query. Examples:
  • @coderabbitai generate unit testing code for this file.
  • @coderabbitai modularize this function.
• PR comments: Tag @coderabbitai in a new PR comment to ask questions about the PR branch. For the best results, please provide a very specific query, as very limited context is provided in this mode. Examples:
  • @coderabbitai generate interesting stats about this repository and render them as a table.
  • @coderabbitai show all the console.log statements in this repository.
  • @coderabbitai read src/utils.ts and generate unit testing code.
  • @coderabbitai read the files in the src/scheduler package and generate a class diagram using mermaid and a README in the markdown format.

Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments.

CodeRabbit Commands (invoked as PR comments)

• @coderabbitai pause to pause the reviews on a PR.
• @coderabbitai resume to resume the paused reviews.
• @coderabbitai review to trigger a review. This is useful when automatic reviews are disabled for the repository.
• @coderabbitai resolve resolve all the CodeRabbit review comments.
• @coderabbitai help to get help.

Additionally, you can add @coderabbitai ignore anywhere in the PR description to prevent this PR from being reviewed.

CodeRabbit Configration File (.coderabbit.yaml)

• You can programmatically configure CodeRabbit by adding a .coderabbit.yaml file to the root of your repository.
• Please see the configuration documentation for more information.
• If your editor has YAML language server enabled, you can add the path at the top of this file to enable auto-completion and validation: # yaml-language-server: $schema=https://coderabbit.ai/integrations/schema.v2.json

Documentation and Community

• Visit our Documentation for detailed information on how to use CodeRabbit.
• Join our Discord Community to get help, request features, and share feedback.
• Follow us on X/Twitter for updates and announcements.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 94.44444% with 1 lines in your changes are missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 74.42%. Comparing base (d62a41f) to head (7cb00b9).
Report is 2 commits behind head on devel.

Files	Patch %	Lines
deepmd/dpmodel/utils/nlist.py	88.88%	1 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##            devel    #3767      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   82.58%   74.42%   -8.17%     
==========================================
  Files         515      515              
  Lines       48796    48795       -1     
  Branches     2982     2982              
==========================================
- Hits        40300    36317    -3983     
- Misses       7585    11775    +4190     
+ Partials      911      703     -208     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[njzjz]

#3763 has fixed the tests, so I'll not resolve it in this PR.

[iProzd]

1. Do we need a similar test for DP models? or we use a consistent test.
2. The forward and forward_lower test is different for spin_models, see source/tests/pt/model/test_forward_lower.py

[wanghan-iapcm]

I agree with @iProzd , a multi-backend test support is necessary.

[coderabbitai]

Actionable comments posted: 0

Out of diff range and nitpick comments (2)

deepmd/dpmodel/model/make_model.py (1)

Line range hint 46-91: Consider adding comments to explain each step in the call method for better readability and maintainability.

deepmd/pt/model/atomic_model/base_atomic_model.py (1)

Line range hint 115-157: Consider adding comments to explain each step in the forward_common_atomic method for better readability and maintainability.

[coderabbitai]

Actionable comments posted: 2

[iProzd]

Comments updated below.

[iProzd]

1. As @wanghan-iapcm said, if we want to add a test, such as permutation invariance, the standard way is to add a common test method in AtomicModelTestCase right?
2. If one model has different behavior to test a common test method, such as forward_lower test for SpinModel, it's expected to overwrite the method in SpinModel's test case. Is it right?

[njzjz]

1. As @wanghan-iapcm said, if we want to add a test, such as permutation invariance, the standard way is to add a common test method in AtomicModelTestCase right?

   2. If one model has different behavior to test a common test method, such as forward_lower test for SpinModel, it's expected to overwrite the method in SpinModel's test case. Is it right?

You are correct.