Do not use res_name to distinguish subsequent residues - #825
Merged
Conversation
padix-key
changed the title
res_name do distinguish subsequent residuesres_name to distinguish subsequent residues
CodSpeed Performance ReportMerging #825 will not alter performanceComparing Summary
|
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Currently a changing
res_nameis used as signal that a new residue begins instructure.get_residue()and all related functionalities. However, as #824 shows this expectation does not hold up in edge cases. Hence, this PR removesres_namefrom the list of categories that are used to distinguish subsequent residues.Fixes #824.