Improvement/add arriba test

[calchoo]

Re adding arriba tests that were failing before

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Base: 86.92% // Head: 86.92% // No change to project coverage 👍

Coverage data is based on head (678323e) compared to base (7825b3c).
Patch coverage: 50.00% of modified lines in pull request are covered.

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##           develop_v3     #346   +/-   ##
===========================================
  Coverage       86.92%   86.92%           
===========================================
  Files              57       57           
  Lines            9390     9390           
  Branches         2355     2355           
===========================================
  Hits             8162     8162           
  Misses            752      752           
  Partials          476      476           

Flag	Coverage Δ
unittests	86.92% <50.00%> (ø)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
src/mavis/annotate/file_io.py	77.06% <ø> (ø)
src/mavis/annotate/variant.py	88.72% <ø> (ø)
src/mavis/convert/__init__.py	87.76% <ø> (ø)
src/mavis/convert/vcf.py	94.11% <ø> (ø)
src/mavis/illustrate/util.py	84.65% <ø> (ø)
src/mavis/pairing/pairing.py	89.86% <0.00%> (ø)
src/mavis/summary/summary.py	70.00% <ø> (ø)
src/mavis/validate/assemble.py	90.28% <ø> (ø)
src/mavis/validate/gather.py	83.88% <ø> (ø)
src/mavis/util.py	80.07% <100.00%> (ø)

Help us with your feedback. Take ten seconds to tell us how you rate us. Have a feature suggestion? Share it here.

☔ View full report at Codecov.
📢 Do you have feedback about the report comment? Let us know in this issue.

[dustinbleile]

looks like a codecov issue with the check?

[calchoo]

looks like a codecov issue with the check?

I'm pretty sure we can ignore that check since the only failing change to that file was for linting