João M.C. Teixeira

* Is it a problem if coverage report for codecov and coveralls is done only in one of the platforms, either Travis or AppVeyor? * I think it works without...

I understand, indeed the expected behavior would be that of a wizard. You do have already some related outlines in the README, if you feel this can be further specified...

By no means, I meant this was a bug from `pdb_delinsertion`. I was also very surprised when I found this situation because that residue nomenclature is not expected. Now reading...

I am checking and they are the same as `xplor`. One difference is that `xplor` (according to here) has HB2/HB1 swapped with 1HB/2HB with the other nomenclatures. Did you know...

I think this is it. tests okay in py27 and py38. @JoaoRodrigues have your say.

A user from the forum is requesting this tool -> https://ask.bioexcel.eu/t/prodigy-fails-to-calculate-binding-energy-of-protein-protein-complex/3420/3 I think is it's a useful tool and we should merge it soon.

Another example, adds `TER` before the start of the PDB. ``` python pdbtools/pdb_addter.py -4:: tests/data/dummy.pdb REMARK CHAIN C DOES NOT HAVE ELEMENTS FOR LAST RESIDUE REMARK CHAIN C CONTAINS RESIDUES...

Another comment, The `PDB` you propose as a test case has about 47k lines. That is too big for the scope of this project. Please look for a minimum case...

> What about pdb_add_manual_ter? A bit longer, but at least more specific. That could be a proper name. As @JoaoRodrigues said, `addter` might be confusing because of `pdb_tidy` which already...

Hi, you can stay on the same branch, no need to do a new branch, > I get an error using chainbows as well (on a normal pdb where I...